Prisoners are those who owe a debt to society, they are made to pay for this by giving their time and freedom in proportion to the crime. Although an effective deterrent against breaking the law, it lacks any active use to society – no substantial payment is being collected. This could change with two democratic representatives offering reduced sentences of “not less than 60 and not more than 365-day reduction in the length of their committed sentence” for organ donations. This ethical section of the module is one which engaged me the most as if forced me to consider viewpoints and problems that I hadn’t been exposed to before in the entire course which was very stimulating and hence the motivation for writing about this specific topic. 

This proposal ultimately offers prisoners an alternate method of paying their societal debt, one that benefits those in most need of it. Of course, there are many denouncers who have this proposal in their crosshairs, shooting ethical and legal arguments at it. In this blog, I will present these arguments and question or dismantle their validity primarily through a utilitarian mode of thinking. One of the main gripes with this potential bill is that it gives prisoners an ‘easy way out’ of their punishment. Perpetuators of this line of reasoning will be displeased to learn of sentence credits and parole which can be granted on basis subjective as good behaviour. If reading books and attending vocational seminars can reduce a sentence, why should organ donation, an act with far greater positive effects be treated any differently? 

 Another point of contention that was brought up during the lecture is the intentions of the prisoners, that unlike positive programs prison programs done for their improvement, organ donation is simply a shortcut. This argument has the potential of being very true but is simultaneously irrelevant. To illustrate my point here is a statistic to do so: According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 17 people die each day in the United States alone while waiting for a transplant, which amounts to over 6,000 deaths per year. Similarly, in the European Union, over 10,000 people die each year while waiting for a transplant. I believe any meaningful reduction in this number is an overall benefit that outweighs any nefarious intentions prisoners may have to ‘circumvent’ punishment. 

When discussing this topic, it was hard not to imagine a loved one in a position where they needed an organ from a prisoner that would receive a reduced sentence, to me it seemed an obvious choice. Personalising the proposal probably skewed my objectivity and made the personal benefits outshine any real societal negatives that became too hard to see in comparison, but when dealing with ethics there is no objectivity and anecdotes replace averages, ironic considering my utilitarian thinking cap.  

Although there are advantages to this proposal highlighted in this blog, there are real concerns that arise like whether it is unfair to take advantage of the situation prisoners are in for donations or for prisoners’ health post-operation. It is these types of questions that engage me so much with this aspect of the course and allow me to appreciate the complexity, grey-ness and probably the futileness of trying to marry science to ethics whilst still making it a worthwhile venture.