Health law Position/Analysis Paper - Essay Example

This argument is in line with the legal perspective of denying death row convicts the desire to donate organs among other reasons. When one is convicted and given a death sentence, there are reasons according to the law, why he is considered to belong to such a category. There is also the issue of, allowing the death row convicts to donate their organs, is abiding by their wish. This therefore, does not accomplish the legal and moral obligations. According to perceptions from different people, allowing the convicts to donate their organs may not be a wrong thing to do, or some issue to be debated over.

The fact that the convict requests to be granted such a wish is the matter. There are two factors to consider in this debate; a) the fact that the convict requests to give his or her organs, and b) the view that focus should be on the organs which serve to help some people; even save lives. In this essay, the argument is on a legal perspective giving a recommendation on what is appropriate about the issues. Arguing Against Death Row Convicts Donating Organs There are ethical and practical barriers explaining why death row convicts are denied the chance to donate organs.

Ethical barriers involve the intention to preserve morality of capital punishment, and the fear of coercion. Moralists argue that by allowing the convicts to donate the organs, the intended purpose of capital punishment will not have been achieved. They also argue that by allowing the act, there are high chances that coercion will take place within the prison borders; that is, their rights may be violated. It is also argued that the prisoners produce poor quality organs due health and social problems, it would not be easy to procure the organs in executed prisoners, there would be low yield, and lack of support from the public (Lin, Rich, Pal & Sade, 2012).

Arguing for Death Row Convicts Donating Organs Considering the arguments presented by those advocating for organ donation by death row convicts, one would be convinced that it is the right thing to do. Lin, Rich, Pal and Sade (2012) argue that ‘one makes a differences’. This is a counter argument to a defence that says, death row inmates are just a few, and the number who would consent to organ donation could only yield a small quantity of organs. It is also argued that the qualifications for one to be an organ donor based on health and social issues should not deter prisoners from being donors.

They can be marginal donors. There is also an argument that poor quality organs are obtained because of the setting in which the organs are retrieved. Lin, Rich, Pal and Sade (2012) prove that both hospital and prison settings take almost similar time in donation after cardiac death (DCD) procedure. They also argue that even if, there was a difference in time; the organs could still be used as marginal organs. There will be no issue of coercion since the prisoners consent to the act. Even if there would be coercion, this would not apply to death row convicts since they are headed to execution.

Lin, Rich, Pal and Sade (2012) however, admits that if organ donation is considered a heroic act by the prisoner, the families seeking retribution would be offended, and the law would not have achieved its aims. Capital punishment would not have; a) Served as a determent for the crime committed, and b) Achieved retribution. In this case, they note that such donations should be carried out by