You must log in or register to comment.

nan_adams t1_j686hxu wrote

I’ve had multiple organ transplants and think this is a terrible idea. It’s unethical, it’s coercive, it’s a slippery slope to some Repo: the Genetic Opera shit.

We are so fortunate to live in a state with some of the best doctors, nurses, hospitals. I can’t imagine they would find this ethical. Organ donation is a huge process. You need to be medically evaluated as a match to the recipient but you also undergo testing to make sure you are physically and mentally capable of transplant. Part of that evaluation is a meeting with a mental health professional to glean of course if you’re capable of handling the post-transplant regimen but also to determine if there are strings attached to donation. They will not push forward with a match where there is ethical ambiguity. I don’t see how this program would proceed past that stage because it is very much a transaction with strings attached.

If we want to increase the pool of available organs there are steps we can take like educating the general public about live donation, encouraging people to register as a donor, dispelling myths about transplant etc. But probably the biggest thing we can do is challenge dialysis companies like DaVita and Fresenius - who lobby against bills that expand access to prescription drug coverage for transplant recipients. These are for profit companies that make money by keeping people on dialysis, even when transplant is often the better path. They’ve lobbied against bills that would expand Medicare coverage of immunosuppressive drugs, which are required for the life of the transplant. The number one cause of transplant rejection and return to dialysis is non-compliance - but this is usually due to patients not being able to afford medication. You want the list to be shorter, the cost to tax payers to be less (Medicare funds dialysis) - you don’t grow the pool of available kidneys, you shrink the pool of who needs them by providing better support to transplant patients and stopping for profit dialysis companies from predatory practices (including advising dialysis as a long term solution to organ failure).


GreatAndPowerfulNixy t1_j68jqbe wrote

I work in oncology and I whole-heartedly second the notion of "fuck DaVita"


foolproofphilosophy t1_j69d9v5 wrote

Feel free to add the makers of Neulasta to your list. If I did my math right it costs about 235x more than gold by weight. 0.6ml costs over $8k. And in my son’s case about 3/4 of each dose ended up in the trash.


Laurenann7094 t1_j6985xb wrote

But what does this have to do with allowing prisoners to join the transplant list?


LumberJack732 t1_j68od1s wrote

This sounds like it would make a great topic for John Oliver to cover. This should be more well known cuz it’s fucked up. Lobbying of this nature really needs to be payed attention to more.


meltyourtv t1_j690en7 wrote

Word thanks for adding yet another 2 pharma companies to my infinitely long list of shitty companies I hate


Laurenann7094 t1_j697uxl wrote

Your arguments are all about issues with people receiving transplants. But I don't see what that has to do with allowing prisoners to join the list of possible matches. Issues are addressed on a case by case basis once a match is made.

As you are someone who has received multiple organ transplants, it is strange to want to gatekeep transplants for other people.

>Organ donation is a huge process.

Bone marrow donation is not a huge process. There are kids dying while waiting for rare matches.


nan_adams t1_j6a9bj1 wrote

As I explained in my post, offering reduced sentencing for joining the transplant list is ethically ambiguous and undermines the altruistic nature of donation. If a prisoner wanted to donate without the reduced sentencing that would be altruistic.

I am someone who received multiple transplants from living donors. I care about the people who donated to me. I am not “gatekeeping” transplants - I am advocating for the rights of the donor.

Our justice system is often inequitable; this plan would put incarcerated persons in a compromising position and could influence them to make a major life decision that they would not ordinarily make if they weren’t incarcerated. On top of that you have the fact that the population of incarcerated persons is majorly skewed racially and socioeconomically you’re creating a system that robs minorities and lower income people of true autonomy and essentially using them as spare parts. If you can’t see how that’s ethically reprehensible I don’t know what to tell you.

I’m very aware people die on transplant lists - not sure why you’re telling me, a person who has been on the list twice, how it works. This is not a solution to the waiting list.


Polynya t1_j6asng1 wrote

So long as it’s not coercive (they aren’t getting punished or having their sentences elongated for not donations) there is nothing ethically dubious about it. Who cares they are getting something in return? Do we expect the farmer to grow food simply because it’s morally good to feed people or the doctor to forgo payment for services because it’s the right thing to do?

The world would be better if we dropped the insane prudishness and high minded moralizing around organ and marrow donation. The USA is the source of 70% of the world’s blood plasma, because we allow people to be paid for it. Allowing people to get paid for doing something good, whether in money or reduce prison sentences, is morally fine. It generates new organs and marrow that will save peoples lives, lives which otherwise probably wouldn’t be saved. So then how can you say that’s bad?

In fact, we should allow markets for kidney, liver, and marrow - all are things that can be donated safely without significant long-term problems for the donater, and will save peoples lives (and also money by cutting down on the amount of time people are waiting for a donation).


CasualSaturdays t1_j66qwzj wrote

I know when I donate blood one of the questions they ask is if you’ve been incarcerated in the last year. Idk if that’s automatically disqualifying, but I’d think the eligibility requirements for organ donation would be at least as strict (and probably more strict) compared to those for blood donation.


SophiaofPrussia t1_j671g0i wrote

I mean who cares about the practical problems? It’s coercive. It’s unconscionable. It’s fucking disgusting. I don’t care if it was easy-peasy and zero risk it’s still completely unethical and entirely inappropriate.


CasualSaturdays t1_j676fsj wrote

Oh I absolutely wasn’t trying to minimize the ethical issues with this. I was just point out that, bare minimum, it seems like the person who wrote this bill has no idea about the actual requirements for organ donation. Like there are reasons why someone living in an environment high-risk for infections and communicable diseases would be a poor candidate for donation, everything else aside.


RunNPRun0316 t1_j68hemm wrote

It is certainly persuasive but how is it coercive and unconscionable? If you accept these terms, you, you are granted a privilege. You earn that privilege upon a service that is is rendered upon your death: full stop.

You no longer have need of those organs. You will now give potential life and happiness to a complete stranger. You have moved from a very dark place to a place of altruism.

I will gladly donate my organs when I am gone. I’m sure that there are many people in prison who probably would have been easily persuaded to do so without receiving anything more than a sense of retribution. Now they could potentially see some benefit from their act of kindness.

If you want something to rail about, There are plenty of things to choose from in our “Justice system.” Private prisons, solitary confinement, bail, the war on drugs and prison labor all come readily to mind, but organ donation? Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see it.


relliott22 t1_j68mklk wrote

If I'm reading it right, it's not about becoming an organ donor, it's about donating an organ, straight up. I don't think it's an unethical offer to make either, but I think the terms are more stringent than simply becoming an organ donor on your license.


RunNPRun0316 t1_j6ckwpt wrote

My mistake. You are absolutely correct. That does make this a pretty thorny ethical debate on par with “The Trolley Problem.”

Still, it’s not “coercive”nor is it necessarily “unethical.” Coercion requires a threat. Telling someone that they will not be giving a specific privilege if they do not provide a specific service is not a threat; it is withholding an incentive that would otherwise not be available.

As long as it is 100% the decision of the incarcerated individual whether or not to provide the service, I don’t see the ethical problems. Of course, the program would have to be administered by some outside party with ethical standards.

I would love to see an actual ethicist way in on this subject.


relliott22 t1_j6crybw wrote

Yeah, I think I pretty much agree with that. I think that it's worth remembering that prison itself is terrible at accomplishing the goals that we set out for it. It isn't great at deterring crime. It isn't great at rehabilitating prisoners. It isn't even great at removing dangerous individuals from society. So if you're opposed to this, what would you like to see happen instead? The status quo isn't doing a great job.


BrokedownAlice69 t1_j68huhr wrote

I don’t see this as unethical at all. They are not forcing individuals to do anything. It’s their choice. And hell if they want to save a life and get out of jail early, good for them


rosekayleigh t1_j68jxtt wrote

Maybe these individuals aren’t much of a danger to the public and should not be incarcerated at all if something like organ or bone marrow donation would make them eligible for early release. The problem is that they probably shouldn’t even be in the prison in the first place. This bill just piles more incentives on the state to incarcerate people for minor crimes. It’s not “good for them” at all.


BrokedownAlice69 t1_j68sgxb wrote

You just made some good points. But what you are insinuating that everyone from DAs, to judges to juries are all in on the corruption. I believe that only violent people, and people that are dangerous to others should be locked up.

As I was writing this I remembered the Amy dookhan drug scandal story. The fucking prosecutors office wouldn’t let these guys out even though the evidence in their cases was tampered with


BlaineTog t1_j68wtw2 wrote

>But what you are insinuating that everyone from DAs, to judges to juries are all in on the corruption.

They certainly could be, and the public would always wonder if a given case had gone in favor of the prosecution because someone powerful wanted that defendant's organs.

But this doesn't even have to be a corruption thing. Once you put the idea in people's heads that more prisoners = more organ donations, you bias them in favor of more arrests, more convictions, and harsher prison sentences. You've told them, "even if this person is wrongfully convicted, at least some good might still come out of it." That's probably not enough to drastically shift a juror's decision, but it will shift some percentage of them where the juror was on the fence and that shift will add up to a lot of convictions across a whole state.

>I believe that only violent people, and people that are dangerous to others should be locked up.

Then why are we allowing those violent, dangerous people out early under any circumstances other than a pattern of behavior proving that they are no longer violent? Giving up a kidney or some bone marrow doesn't do that, especially not when there's a contractual payment rendered for your trouble.


[deleted] t1_j6743wd wrote



Appropriate-XBL t1_j683sgj wrote

Do actually believe that or are you just being edgy for kicks? Serious question.

If you do believe that, can you elaborate on why it’s okay for society to do such a poor job of creating better people, and why state ownership of the bodies of these people should be a consequence of that?


CHGhee t1_j670z0t wrote

There is more time spent investigating potential organ donors but the absolute restrictions are actually much less strict. While blood supplies have been scarce over the last few years, availability of donor organs is extremely limited. And organs must be matched to a recipient in many ways aside from blood type (size for example).

So transplant medicine has gone to great lengths to maximize the potential for organ donations. This includes transplanting from donors who were incarcerated, are Hep C positive, or HIV positive. These risks do require a conversation between the recipient and their doctor, but may make sense in some cases (such as if the potential recipient is also Hep C positive or if it does not appear they would survive long enough to receive another organ offer).

A similar idea applies to tissue donation. People are more likely to die in a way that allows them to be tissue donors (skin, corneas, etc) and the recipient’s health is less critical. So there are stricter eligibility criteria for tissue donation than organ.

But regardless, I think this kind of incentive is a truly bad idea.


devett27 t1_j68bwjy wrote

You would be surprised to learn where some of the organs come from and the people they come from. There are a lot of drug overdose deaths that the families donate organs.


ThreeDogs2022 t1_j66re4q wrote

Jesus whose dystopian brainchild is this?!


deano413 t1_j67ce76 wrote

It's Mass so it's a Democrat brainchild


0wnzorPwnz0r t1_j683sqh wrote

Oh shut the fuck up. Our state hits top ranking in 484784 different categories. Go down south you fucking moron.


emptytheprisons t1_j68bzew wrote

I'm no conservative, but it was authored by two democrats, one of which is attempting to sell this as a "progressive" bill to "restore bodily autonomy"


ThreeDogs2022 t1_j68q7vs wrote

Ok so Ms Judith Garcia is missing a few of her more important screws. Jaysus Lucifer Christ.

How about just make it possible for prisoners to donate blood or organs to their loved ones only without any kind of pay?

There's absolutely no way this will pass. Tying organ donation to compensation is strictly forbidden.


ThreeDogs2022 t1_j68qef5 wrote

Ah yes, thank you, saying "Democrat" really answered the question and added an important detail to the conversation that absolutely changes the nuts and bolts of the subject. Feck off.


bisonhippo t1_j66vrxt wrote


CHGhee t1_j6730qb wrote

I think it makes sense to be wary of non-directed living donations or deceased donations. Clearly any sort of incentive system is pretty appalling. But what about a directed kidney or liver donation to a immediate family member?

Forcing someone to watch a loved-one die when they could have helped them outside of jail, seems cruel and unnecessary.


majoroutage t1_j67721v wrote

I'm not sure donations to family/friends (that one may be inclined to make regardless of incarceration) are meant to be within the scope of the article. It seems focused on the being encouraged to give to strangers angle.


wickedblight t1_j66whah wrote

Jesus fucking Christ, so now we're incentivizing the cops to overreach so we can harvest living tissue from "criminals"


gittenlucky t1_j66z3ui wrote

We already do it for slave labor, so…


wickedblight t1_j66zncf wrote

You know society is moving in the wrong direction when "slave prisoners" is the lighter option compared to "bag of organs waiting for harvest"


Foxcecil t1_j66nisb wrote

Reminds me of China's organ harvesting program. For the price of one kidney, you can get out of jail sooner!


Syncope7 t1_j687jay wrote

This needs more awareness. The CCP encourages forced organ harvesting/donation


evilgenius12358 t1_j68mis3 wrote

And this is voluntary right?


Syncope7 t1_j6976ls wrote

Only if you’re a Han Chinese. Uighur’s don’t get the same treatment.


Foxcecil t1_j69ipl7 wrote

Han are also subject to this if they are political prisoners or Falun Gong practicers.


Syncope7 t1_j69myd9 wrote

Such a shame. Good people just like the rest of us, subjected to the rule of a barely human autocracy.


End3rWi99in t1_j674g3b wrote

Looks like it was cosponsored by reps Carlos Gonzalez (10th Hampden) and Judith Garcia (11th Suffolk). Might want to check and see if they've donated their brains.


smoothlightning t1_j66sy25 wrote

What the fuck have we become?


Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_j670t9u wrote

I hate to make the comparison, but alleged organ trafficking of prisoners in China has been a perennial human rights issue raised over at least the last decade.


Ministry_of__Truth OP t1_j66mrxg wrote


thomastodon01027 t1_j670ego wrote

Gotta say, I’m a little surprised by the sponsors.


Appropriate-XBL t1_j684haw wrote

Even good people can have misguided ideas sometimes. Focusing too hard on what good might come from something to the detriment of seeing all the bad.


Elementium t1_j686kxb wrote

Yep it's one of those things where in Hypothetical-Land it sounds like a reward for past good deeds on someone who accidentally committed a crime.

In reality.. It's kinda icky and the law should be the law. If you donated a million dollars to sick kids and still kill someone drunk driving, the crime is what matters.


trevor12121212 t1_j68nl4c wrote

What makes them good people?


amackenz2048 t1_j68rb9u wrote

Turns out people are complex and don't always make just good or bad decisions. Seems that our impulse to categorize people into simple buckets is flawed.


trevor12121212 t1_j68rmpb wrote

Agreed I was just wondering why the previous person automatically categorized these representatives as good people with misguided ideas as opposed to politicians following lobbying dollars


Appropriate-XBL t1_j68t8cb wrote

I think you're probably just being an ass, but in case you're just not that bright, I'll explain:

First, no one said the sponsors of the bill were good people. All that was said was that sometimes good people make mistakes. So, it's a possible explanation for this bad bill EVEN IF we assume the best about them.


Carlos González has been a social worker, prior to some private industry experience advancing likely-underserved Hispanic people and businesses. For at least 16 years since then, he's worked in government, representing all his constituents, perhaps even ones who say dumb shit on Reddit.

Judith A. Garcia has worked in local and state government for the last seven years. She's focused her work on housing, the environment, and education. She's also the daughter of an immigrant single mother who is showing everyone that the American dream is still possible, even in spite of all the negativity in our society, perhaps as evidenced in dumb comments on Reddit.

Shirley B. Arriaga joined the military when she was 20 and served for about a decade. Doing service in Iraq and Afghanistan "out of a sense of duty to our country." She did this even though some of what she was protecting was the right of idiots to say uninformed things on Reddit.

Bud L. Williams has been in public service in governmental capacity for some 30 years. Prior to that he was a probation officer, helping to rehabilitate those who had previously committed crimes but were on the road to becoming productive citizens, unlike those who fake-ask silly questions to pretend like they're clever on Reddit.

Russell E. Holmes was a successful small businessman for years prior to serving the public for the last ten-plus years. He has worked with community groups such as Big Brothers Big Sisters, tutored and mentored young adults, and has been there to support his wife of 14 years who has dedicated what seems like her whole life to education. And that's important because we so much ignorance everywhere, like in the comments on Reddit.

Third, each of those five people make only around $70k a year working for the public good when they could probably be in the private sector making more and putting up with less bullshit.


trevor12121212 t1_j68vvlz wrote

Yeah you should’ve used gender neutral


Appropriate-XBL t1_j68xxrp wrote

And you should use commas and periods.


trevor12121212 t1_j68y40j wrote

I’ll be sure to do post-comment research then copy and paste a novel from Wikipedia next time


Appropriate-XBL t1_j68y9jm wrote

Please let me know precisely where I plagiarized this from when you get a chance, professor.


trevor12121212 t1_j68yid8 wrote

Lol if you actually have mass representative biographies memorized I suggest turning off the tv and going for a walk while pondering life choices


Appropriate-XBL t1_j68ypzu wrote

I’d suggest you learn the difference between plagiarizing, memorizing, and research and writing.

But you’ll get a lot more out of just not being a tool-bag first.


Dexion1619 t1_j66qiam wrote

Can't see any way this isn't horribly abused. FFS.


PsyrusTheGreat t1_j675trw wrote

If you voted for that dude you need to come get your man. He's getting really close to harvesting prisoners...


Ineluki_742 t1_j66wbnl wrote

These bill sponsors should read the Jigsaw Man by Larry Niven. This bill is the kind of shit that leads to that story becoming reality.


SheeEttin t1_j675qyb wrote

No medical organization will allow this. It's incredibly unethical.


rjeantrinity t1_j67vfs9 wrote

Hospitals are in the business of making money. They’ll do it, and probably helped behind the scenes to get it sponsored.


BostonGuy84 t1_j672558 wrote

This is fucked up


rjeantrinity t1_j67vd65 wrote

You can always rely on a Boston guy to say it like it is. Agree 100 percent, it’s super fucked up.


Fiyero109 t1_j67i0sm wrote

Bone marrow I get, but organs are a big no no


LaAndala t1_j67xict wrote

It depends, liver grows back so I could see that be OK too. But a kidney.. yeah not cool…


Fiyero109 t1_j68z4hv wrote

The liver does regenerate but live liver transplants are very rare. Mostly kidneys done when the donor is alive


sonneamsee t1_j67yx9y wrote

According to the FDA donor eligibility rules, you are ineligible to donate human tissue if you have been incarcerated for more than 72 consecutive hours in the past 12 months due to potential exposure to HIV, Hep C, Hep B. This is one of the many questions asked. Why is this bill going against clear FDA guidance???


Crimson-Forever t1_j67d5w0 wrote

I've been on the transplant list for a kidney and pancreas for 4 years now at MGH (Dialysis for 2) and this is just a horrendous idea. We aren't China.


nan_adams t1_j685d0y wrote

I’ve had two transplants (kidneys) through BWH and completely agree with you. It’s massively unethical and as a recipient I would not feel comfortable with this at all. It’s coercive and exploitive.

Good luck to you though friend! I have been there waiting and I promise it will get so much better.


Bada__Ping t1_j687eab wrote

Being incarcerated for more than 2 days is usually a rule out for organ donation because the risk of Hep C is so high. Wonder how this would even work


Penaltiesandinterest t1_j6fnafx wrote

It wouldn’t because it’s idiot legislators pulling things out of their asses without consulting anyone who might actually have a clue about this.


the_sky_god15 t1_j66y3x5 wrote

So obviously the organs thing is a bad idea, but is there any downside to donating bone marrow? My understanding was it regenerates.


Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_j672k5z wrote

Trade in human tissues is the same regardless of the tissue. It's creating an incentive to undertake a risky medical procedure under the duress of incarceration.


Paul6334 t1_j670coo wrote

The downside is what this incentivizes.


paganlobster t1_j6743c8 wrote

Well, think about what’s involved in actually obtaining bone marrow…


DymonBak t1_j68u8b7 wrote

Unless the recipient is a very young child, my understanding is that the procedure itself isn’t bad. The prep can suck because you have to be sick though.


Crop64 t1_j682zkc wrote

Besides the ethical issues, there's risk of infection and pain (can be persistent and long lasting) with bone marrow harvesting...probably even more risks.

(I had bone marrow harvested before).


GrippingHand t1_j68czss wrote

Health care in prisons is notoriously bad. We should avoid doing anything to prisoners that increases their risk of infection.


emptytheprisons t1_j68tj0j wrote

Exactly, post-op care in prisons is incredibly neglectful and cruel.


BlaineTog t1_j68ilqt wrote

Imagine you're identified as having a rare kind of bone marrow. Now imagine that a shady hospital communicates this to a shady detective and a shady DA on their take.


popento18 t1_j68aqii wrote

Nice to see we have reached the harvesting humans matter from the 'poors' part of capitalism


Popomatik t1_j672hxk wrote

No way in hell this is ethical!


jwhittin t1_j689i8x wrote

Sounds like slavery with extra steps.


BlaiddDrwg82 t1_j6925kd wrote

We should have an automatic opt-in when you turn 18. Bone marrow donations save lives. I’d be dead if it wasn’t for the 10/10 match that was found for me—-in Germany!

Donating bone marrow is similar to donating blood/platelets. You get injected with something to stimulate your stem cells/bone marrow production (I don’t remember exactly) and then it’s removed in a similar process to taking blood. There’s no more drilling into your back and taking it directly from the bone.

So in terms of organ donation, this is the easiest one you could do AND it requires minimal effort on your part.

Donate blood, donate platelets, register with www.bethematch.organd maybe save a life.


Beantownbrews t1_j685qeq wrote

This is completely wrong. Even if it was designed with good intentions, the opportunity for abuse is just insane.


imuniqueaf t1_j68iwh7 wrote

So we are harvesting humans for reduced incarceration. This doesn't feel ethical.


Salem13978 t1_j68mu82 wrote

Don't do the crime or it's harvesting time!


BlaineTog t1_j68vqa6 wrote

I just sent this text in an email to my state rep. You are welcome to copy it or use a version of it yourself:

>On January 20th, Bill HD.3822 was introduced for consideration by the Massachusetts State legislature. I wish to voice my strident objection to this bill, entitled, "An Act to establish the Massachusetts incarcerated individual bone marrow and organ donation program."
>Facially, this bill seems to make sense as a way to empower prisoners to do good deeds that benefit their fellow citizens even while the prisoners remain stuck behind bars, as well as a way to spur badly-needed organ and bone marrow donations. However, it results in a number of perverse incentives at every level of the justice system while weakening the foundations of punishment and should by no means be made the law of the land.
>First and most crucially, this bill puts an enormous amount of pressure on prisoners to become the organ bank of society. If given a choice between giving up a kidney and spending a year in prison, most people in desperate circumstances could hardly say no to the option to get out early, particularly if they have dependents. Even without any explicit promises of time off, prisoners would still feel pressured to give organs in the hopes of preferential treatment from the prison, the guards, and parole boards. This concern is explored in greater depth in this NY Times opinion piece from 2013. Essentially, prisoners do not have a meaningful freedom to refuse, not under such heavy levels of implicit and explicit coercion.
>Second, the philosophical premise of this bill is an affront to the concept of justice and cannot realistically be limited to organ donation. If prison sentences are meant to be a just punishment befitting the individual's crime, then no amount of extracurricular good deeds could be traded to buy off that punishment. However, if we instead decide that giving up an organ provides sufficient counterbalance to the societal harm that the individual's crime caused, then there would be no reason not to take a sufficiently large check instead. This bill requires us to agree that societal harm and societal benefit are fungible qualities and gives organ donation a specific valuation, but that means we could also assign a particular level of societal benefit to the US dollar and allow prisoners to buy their way out of prison. Imagine a very rich person were to kill someone through reckless driving and received 5 years in prison. Surely $100 million would benefit society vastly more than one individual receiving one kidney, so by the logic of this bill, that rich person could just pay some amount less than $500 million and walk out of jail that same day.
>Third, this bill creates a perverse incentive for our entire judicial system to imprison more people and for longer sentences. Imprisoning people is a necessary evil, but it ought not be desirable from a societal level. With this bill, however, we encourage the police to arrest more people, DAs to seek harsher sentences, judges to lean in favor of the prosecution, and juries to default to conviction, simply because a larger and more desperate prison population results in a larger store of donated organs. In extreme cases, this could even result in individuals with rare blood types being targeted by crooked police and hospitals. Even if none of these dystopian circumstances were to occur, the public would be eternally suspicious of them happening in hidden backrooms. We do not need even more reasons to distrust our Justice system right now.
>Fourth, none of this even touches on the extremely problematic macro result: if this bill were to go through and none of the other issues arose, we would still effectively have turned a racial minority population into an organ battery for the White majority of the Commonwealth. For reasons that are complex and multivarried, prison populations tend to be disproportionately BIPOC while White people outside of prison tend to have better access to healthcare than their fellow BIPOC citizens. An organ donor would be more likely than average to be a person of color while an organ recipient would be more likely than average to be White. In a time of increasing racial disharmony, the last thing we need is to turn to such ghoulish measures to feed the longevity of those affluent enough to be able to afford the various costs of organ transplant.
>Thank you for your time.


Laurenann7094 t1_j69c68n wrote

>An organ donor would be more likely than average to be a person of color while an organ recipient would be more likely than average to be White.

I don't know where you got this but you are wrong. And you are suggesting it as a template to other redditors! Wow.

Almost 60% of people on the U.S. transplant waiting list are people of color, including Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Native American patients. However, the number of donors from those communities is much lower than the number from white communities.

Among communities of color, Black American are the largest group in need of organ transplants overall. Data from 2020 shows that Black Americans make up 31.4% of candidates on the kidney transplant waiting list but only 8% of living kidney donors. That's in contrast to white Americans who represent 34.9% of candidates and 71.4% of living donors.


BlaineTog t1_j69jlzp wrote

First, where are you getting those numbers? I'm not calling them into question, I'm interested to see the full dataset.

Second, the waiting list by itself isn't the best metric to use here. We might expect there to be more BIPOC people on the waiting list if White people are finding ways to skip the line (such as by securing private donations).

But to answer your question, I don't have a source. I was working off the assumption that every racial group needs organ transplants at equal rates, but you're right to point out that that isn't necessarily the case. Perhaps certain groups are predisposed to illnesses that require more transplants, or perhaps other groups receive better preventative healthcare and avoid getting to that point. These sorts of influences are deeply rooted in all levels of society and they can be hard to tease out.

Thank you for pointing that out. I'm upvoting your comment so people can choose whether to leave that point in or not. FWIW, I'm not strictly suggesting people use this, and I certainly don't expect anyone to use it verbatim. I just figured if I went to the trouble of typing this up, other people ought to have a chance to use it as their first draft.


Powerism t1_j68xyb0 wrote

Kidney donation knocks off 2 years. Heart, released immediately and your record is expunged.


Garethx1 t1_j67e8kr wrote

I was under the impression there were federal laws against this.


ShockedNChagrinned t1_j67y6dc wrote

So pay us in blood and bone, and you can leave early?



Rizzpooch t1_j68130t wrote

Until we pick you up again for parole violation


wrenhunter t1_j68f5zb wrote

But really, they Never Let Them Go.


gloriousgianna t1_j67esdo wrote

uhhh…what the fuck??? i am absolutely speechless what the fuck


LegisLAYshun t1_j68fd26 wrote

Not to dismiss everyone's opinions on what a bad idea this bill is, but it is going precisely nowhere. There are like 6000 bills filed every year in the Massachusetts General Court. There are bound to be some bad ideas that get thrown in.

It's going to have a hearing, and then it will either get sent to study or, given how much of an actual bad idea this is, it will get a "recommend do not pass" by the committee.

If you want to participate beyond posting on Reddit about it, sign up for an account on and track the bill. When a hearing is scheduled, send testimony to the committee chairs with your opinions. In-person testimony would be better, but I recognize that this is not feasible for most people.


zoomiewoop t1_j68tf3t wrote

I’m glad the overwhelming response to this is revulsion. I doubt this bill will come close to being passed, but it’s encouraging that so many people can see how wrong it is.

Incarcerated people don’t get a lot of sympathy most of the time. But they’re human beings and they’re no different to any of us, whether we’ve been inside or not. Having worked inside prisons, many of my friends are incarcerated or formerly incarcerated and we need to be ending the situation of mass incarceration, not making it worse through ideas like this.


JimAbb t1_j6addqr wrote

Moral issues aside for a sec…

Why would they word it “gain a reduction” and not “reduce”?


wra1th42 t1_j674qm1 wrote

A modest proposal


apresbondie22 t1_j68hsbx wrote

Time to get our pitchforks out. This is insane!


mini4x t1_j68m7hv wrote

Donate a kidney get out of jail free!



Ravenflaw t1_j68ug3w wrote

I feel like this is one of many first steps towards a life like Repo the Genetic Opera...


tjlightbulb t1_j68wg6j wrote

This is legit nightmare fuel. Imagine giving your kidney for not even a year off your sentence.


Rikudo_Sennin_jr t1_j69awdi wrote

Wasnt there a movie like this that had the old and rich using the poor and incarcerated for spare parts so the rich could keep living longer and longer


CowSheepGoat t1_j69l20d wrote

I read The Dystopia Triptych last year, and I kept thinking how ridiculous some of the premises were of several of the short stories (yes, one of them involved a seemingly well-intentioned voluntary organ donation scheme, and where that would inevitably lead). Maybe I was just oblivious at the time, but especially in the past year several of them just seem prescient. We really are living in the darkest timeline.


TwoCanSee t1_j69mad9 wrote

They been doing this shit in the movies for yearssss.


CRoss1999 t1_j69s56x wrote

It’s hard because people absolutely should be rewarded or payed for organ donations but of course It does feel a little coercive to take days of prison off, that said it also feels cruel to pay a prisoner for a donation when they are still jailed


Girlsquiggle t1_j6aitrl wrote

This is very strange as folks who have been incarcerated for more than like 90 days aren’t even allowed to donate blood


posthaste99 t1_j6arxra wrote

This country will never stop extracting everything possible from the working class, but especially those incarcerated.


Polynya t1_j6at9ru wrote

Even better idea: allow people to get paid for kidney, liver, and marrow donation. The insane prudishness and moralizing we have around the normal concept of getting paid for donations results in a lot of death and suffering. The USA is the source of 70% of the world’s blood plasma, vital for everything from battlefield medicine to critical pharmaceuticals, all because we allow people to get paid for it. The net good of allowing sales of liver, kidney, and marrow so drastically outweighs the negative.


Substantial-Ad-5012 t1_j6b5jc2 wrote

Another reason for the private prison system to incarcerate more people.


singbowl1 t1_j6myxvw wrote

You can't have such I support the idea!


Ilikereddit15 t1_j681bef wrote

It’s not a bill it’s on the docket ;-)


LegisLAYshun t1_j68eb60 wrote

It's a bill. Legislation gets docket numbers when filed before being assigned bill numbers.


Ilikereddit15 t1_j6avvgc wrote

Technically you are absolutely correct. But this will go out for study and die


Beck316 t1_j68unfc wrote

I don't have a problem with it, ethically. Cost, maybe. 1 year Max off a sentence if you have donated marrow or organ. Potential donors would need to be screened and tested in order to be accepted so that's a pretty big filter.

How many people donated blood in high school to get out of class or for a pack of Lorna doones and a juice box?


RampagingTurtle11 t1_j694l9x wrote

Disgusting. Wr go further and furthet from decency every day


lesmisarahbles t1_j69ut9f wrote

Organ donation tied to reduced sentencing is a huge absolutely not, way too coercive.

Bone marrow donation is still probably not good, however, being someone’s match is very rare and it isn’t a permanent loss of an organ and is usually akin to donating blood in terms of invasiveness.


Room_Ferreira t1_j69wvzt wrote

Seems very exploitative of an already at risk demographic of incarcerated people. Why not my a public program aimed at private citizens that is incentive based? Oh yeah because its better to push someone to “donate” than it is to pay for organs I guess.


BrentD22 t1_j69ww64 wrote

They are really being introduced to the donor in need lists and being allowed to make a choice. Then being rewarded for that choice.


Tbirdoc t1_j68fsa4 wrote

I know it sounds unethical, however it's the prisoners choice to donate. I highly doubt that 1 year off your sentence will entice inmates to be in a hurry to give up a Kidney or the like.


ptg33 t1_j686tcw wrote

How would we react if there was a news story of someone serving a 5 year sentence and decides to donate an organ in their 4th year but is still required to serve their final year in prison. Think most of us agree that their sentence should be reduced for such an act.


So I guess the question is, how do we reward someone who does such a selfless act while at the same time protecting prisoners from the dystopian idea of harvesting their organs.


GrippingHand t1_j68dkb9 wrote

We will not hear about the guard whose wife needs a kidney, so he beats potential donors until they volunteer. Or the warden getting kickbacks. Or the inmate who dies of an infection from bad care after donating. It's not acceptable to put people in this position while they are in the state's care.


ptg33 t1_j68m236 wrote

It’s funny because I actually agree with you more but was presenting a legitimate argument that allows for differing viewpoints.


internalogic t1_j66spfi wrote

Getting selected as a marrow donor is a one in a million scenario. Similar for kidneys. It’s not like anyone can donate at will, first you need a match…


wickedblight t1_j66wvu5 wrote

I bet "big fish" have access to prisoner's medical records and are thrilled to have a private organ bank to dip into when needed.


egv78 t1_j671qkz wrote

Yes, and then again, no. One of the ways that doctors are increasing the matches is to give people an option to "chain" donate. (link)


mari815 t1_j66yunr wrote

A kidney match isn’t too hard. There would be a lot of organs available….but I’m wildly opposed to this bill.


warlocc_ t1_j67ca52 wrote

It's still a terrible precedent to set- donating organ and tissue to get out of prison.


mari815 t1_j68iu7v wrote

I’m writing to the sponsors of this proposed bill. It’s fucking horseshit. I can’t believe we elected people like this. We need to do better. Coercing prisoners to give up a fucking organ is abuse


RollasZek t1_j67eqsh wrote

I think it's a great idea, give a prisoner a chance to actually do something useful.


ak47workaccnt t1_j680uik wrote

If them being useful to society was the goal, we'd be trying to rehabilitate them, not harvest their organs.