This question will be presented by Ted Koppel on tonight's Nightline. But I thought it posed an interesting question concerning ethics and wondered what your opinions might be on the subject. I think it reflects just how screwed up the medical system is in the U.S. Not to mentiion how screwed up our value system is in this country. I think of all those people who have lived a law abiding life, paid taxes and who might die without a kidney transplant. Maybe the mother or father of small children. I think of all the poor people who the state would not foot the bill for to get a much needed kidney transplant. This man is on death row! A convicted murderer of an 18 year old girl. The state of Orgeon is footing the bill for a man whose kidney damage was caused in the process of an attempted escape from jail. All that money, and at the possible additional cost of someone else's life who is waiting for a kidney donation, all for a man who the state intends to put to death anyway. Does this make sense to anyone here? What are your thoughts on the subject?

When a convicted murderer needs a kidney transplant, should he get one? What if thousands of working poor cannot get that level of care? Our convoluted and inadequate health care system sometimes means you might get better care if you committed a crime and were incarcerated. What's going on here??

Horacio Reyes-Camarena was convicted of committing a heinous crime. He stabbed an 18 year old woman to death. And that was not the end of the trouble he caused the state of Oregon. Two days before his sentencing, he and another prisoner escaped from jail. In the process, Reyes-Camarena fell four stories and eluded capture for three more weeks. During the fall, he suffered serious injuries and now has such severe kidney damage that he must be hooked up to a dialysis machine three days a week, four hours at a time. His treatment while on death row, awaiting his ongoing appeals, is costing the taxpayers of Oregon some $120,000 per year.

Last month, Reyes-Camarena's prison doctor pointed out that he is a good candidate for a kidney transplant, medically speaking. But ethically speaking? That's another story.

First, the money. And with health care these days, money is often the bottom line. Reyes-Camarena's dialysis costs $120,000 per year. Every year. A transplant operation would be a one time cost of approximately $100,000. He would still require anti-rejection drugs, which are not cheap, but there is no question that the surgery would be less expensive to the state of Oregon than ongoing dialysis.

Now the ethics. Some 55,000 people are waiting for kidney transplants around the country. And in Oregon, the state budget crisis is so dire that thousands of people are denied some level of health care each day because the state health system is virtually broke. So, the people of Oregon were outraged when it was even discussed as a possibility that Reyes-Camera might get one of the precious few kidneys available for transplant. Would the state be keeping him healthy just long enough to kill him?

Love, Connie

Hi Connie,

I feel that giving a dead man life is totally unexceptable.
Unless, of course, another death row convict, would be
willing to donate one. Lets keep that energy contained
in the same place.
Give to the ones, on the outside of the bars. Donate the
kidney, as an act of mercy, to one who can't afford it,
who has a family.
Transplants are against spiritual law, I've been told.
I can see from an energetic/soul point of veiw, how it is so. To implant a foreign energy, so unlike "your" own,
vibrationally different, while holding the cellular
memories of another. Results could really be disturbing
to the recipient.

Rena

Yep, that's a tough one, all right. Lots of conflicting factors and judgments at work.

I agree with your thought about transplants in general, Rena ... I think there are bound to be major "unnatural" consequences from implanting a major functional organ like a heart or kidney, with all its genetic vibrational and cellular memory differences. Plus the very nature of the enormous financial and technological resources needed for a successful organ transplant make it a solution that can never be a "general" solution to any health problem ... it can only be available to the wealthy or those otherwise selected by "the system," and such choices inevitably have a large political/economic component, so it can never be a purely "medical" or healing decision. For every dramatic successful transplant, there will be thousands of other equally worthy individuals for whom it is never an option, who die from the condition. There's something inherently out of balance there.

Still, I'm not at all sure that would stop me from pursuing a transplant if I were convinced that, say, one of my children's life depended on it.

Since I don't believe in capital punishment, the argument about wasting a kidney on a condemned man holds no water for me. In my value system, the state has no business killing anyone regardless of their crime, so to ask "why keep him alive only to kill him?" is not relevant. However, given the scarceness of viable donor organs, the question of moral worth is a more troublng one. Is it right to save the life of a murderer at the cost of an innocent life that could be saved with that same kidney? It's easy to answer "no" to that one ... but again there is a queasiness about making such judgements. None of us are omniscient or infallible ... perhaps he didn't really kill anyone (innocent people HAVE been condemnded and executed!) ... or perhaps the innocent whose life is saved instead might grow up to become a serial killer ... lifeboat situations, to be sure, but having to make (or delegate) such life-and-death decisions based on the moral stature of a soul feels uncomfortably like playing God. How very far removed is that from the reasoning of the proponents of state-sponsored euthanasia for those who are born with (or acquire) physical defects that render them completely unable to survive "naturally" ... society's "useless eaters" who can only live at the expense of others supporting them? Or the criminally insane, or "three time losers" in the criminal justice system, who will otherwise be imprisoned for life at taxpayer expense ... might it not be acceptable to euthanize such people, if we are in the business of making medical life-and-death decisions base on moral judgments?

I dunno ... these are all troubling questions. I suppose I'm glad I am not the one who has to make this decision ... although there is little doubt in my mind that if I were the one in that position, I'd give the kidney to an innocent kid before a convicted murderer!

Love,
Greg

I'd have to cast my vote against giving him a kidney.

From a legal standpoint, he was convicted and sentenced to death. The sentence is the key. Although, he may appeal, his current sentence is death. Going by that, what is the point in giving him a good kidney. If I were a donor or a donor's family, I'd be outraged at the thought of him getting a precious organ that might help someone else live.

Some very good thoughts here. Rena, you brought up something that could probably be a whole new topic regarding transplants. All religions may differ in doctrine about that. I know that in the Roman Catholic doctrine regarding transplants that certain ones such as a kidney, a portion of the liver, or bone marrow are acceptable because they do not threaten the life of the donor. Any transplant that does not threaten the life of the donor would be acceptable. However, any other sort of transplant is morally wrong according to the RC doctrine unless death is declared and the soul and body of the person is separated. So declaring someone "brain dead" alone is not enough. Because even when a person is "brain dead" the heart continues beating, the blood continues circulating, kidneys and vital organs continue to function as do all body regulating systems. The tricky thing there is that as I understand it, the heart has to still be beating when taken for transplant otherwise it cannot be used. So heart transplant would not be morally acceptable in RC doctrine.

I have heard, though I don't know if it has ever been scientifically proven, that recipients of organs feel some sort of connection with the donor. Myself, I think that all we are as human beings emanates from the soul and that is our energy or life force. Once that soul has left the body it takes all it's energy of love with it into the next life. That energy of love is the force that keeps the whole universe in constant motion. Tielhard De Chardin wrote a great essay on that. Imagine thinking of all the souls who lived before us taking their life energy with them and it is that life energy that contributes to sustaining our lives here and now and contributes to the expansion of the universe. Every breath we take contains the life force of all other living things. What I exhale others breathe in and I in turn breathe in what they exhale. That includes animal and plant life as well. That certainly defines that unity or connection we have to all other life forms and with each other. A heart transplant, because it had to have been beating at the time it was taken from the person, would indeed contain the energy of the other person.

What bothers me most about this convicted murderer receiving a kidney transplant is that I know the state is not doing it because they want to keep the man alive or even care if he lives or dies. I think they prefer he just died and save them the trouble. They are doing it to save themselves money in the long run.

Quote:

---

First, the money. And with health care these days, money is often the bottom line. Reyes-Camarena's dialysis costs $120,000 per year. Every year. A transplant operation would be a one time cost of approximately $100,000. He would still require anti-rejection drugs, which are not cheap, but there is no question that the surgery would be less expensive to the state of Oregon than ongoing dialysis.

---

The state saves money by a one-shot $100,000 kidney donation. Whereas they are now paying $120,000 a year for the dialysis and appeals can take as long as 14 years. It is mostly that which the state of Oregon is concerned about. Yet still, they are willing to sacrifice the life of someone else who may be in dire need of a kidney transplant just to save the state money in the long run. It is the money thing that really bothers me.

Greg, I agree with you that it is playing God for anyone to determine whether a person is worthy of life or not, no matter what sort of life they may lead. Human life is human life and not distinguishable by what sort of person it may be. I'm going out on a limb here but this whole matter of determining who should live and who should die, in my mind, is a decision we make every day. That brings up the big A subject that no one wants to talk about. But in my mind, IMHO, we are playing God and determining who should live and who should die by allowing abortion. I realize that many people are not going to like me saying that but I just can't see it any other way from a moral and spiritual stand point.

Love, Connie

My vote is to give him the kidney.

The source of the Ethics is not a doctor doing his duty.
It is not a Hospital that can provide the service.
It is not the class of the patient.

The ethics goes straight to the top of Government, which are the representatives of the people of our country and States, and Counties. The ethics all say give and save life.
The morals of the people reflected through our policies are what are corrupted.

The people are unethical because of low morals and spiritual understanding.

Even today at this late hour, the only reason the low cost, no cost working poor insurance agenda is back, being discussed is because it is being used as a Presidential election issue.

I.E. Tell me what makes you angry, what makes you afraid, what makes your skin crawl, what you prejudices are, who you hate and I will, as a politician or a corporation or a marketing business extension, wil tell you what to think, what to do, and what to buy.

The problem is US. We are an unethical nation. An ungodly nation. A sinful and corrupt nation. It will catch up with US.

As Saturn moves into Cancer of the US chart restrictions and accountability will swing from discussion of high ethical ideals to even more narrow-minded nationality.
The Flag would get a transplant before a citizen who slightly resembled Horacio.

And God help Carl if he ever needs something major. He looks like Usama Bin Laden and Horacio and he has a record. They'll just shoot the little orphan boy on site. Or maybe take him to Michigan and hang him from a lamppost. That will teach that badass felon to go fishing on his birthday without a license.

The vegetables and the water don't make the soup bad. It's the cooks.


Love and Let Live,
Darwin

This is a very delicate and conflicting issue.

I agree with Greg in being against capital punishment. Usually someone is on death row because he or she killed another person, so if we can't kill, who gives the government the right to do it??? Who are we as a nation to decide someone deserves to die??

One of the most important laws in any religion is "thou shall not kill", but I don't see an asterisc at the bottom saying "only the government can kill"

I agree that they must be separarted from society to prevent them from doing more harm...but kill them???

And that brings me to Connies question...

If we should not be killing anyone, then we also can't decide who deserves or not a kidney transplant. Can we say that this person doesn't deserve it, who are we to judge?
Are we sure we have the right answer?

I'd say it is not moral to deny the convicted murderer the transplant. What if he gives something back to society in the extra time he will have?

What if giving him the chance his soul is saved?

Tish