'Conditioned on' kidney donation, sisters' prison release prompts ethics debate

[alp227]

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) has announced that he will grant an early release from prison to two sisters serving unusually long sentences for armed robbery.

Gladys and Jamie Scott have each served 16 years of life sentences. Their case had become a cause celebre among civil rights groups, including the NAACP, which mounted a national campaign to free the women.

Civil rights activists said Thursday that they welcome Barbour's decision. But an unconventional aspect of the arrangement is drawing scrutiny from medical ethicists: Barbour said his action was "conditioned on" one sister donating a kidney to the other.

Barbour agreed this week to suspend their sentences in light of the poor health of Jamie Scott, 38, who requires regular dialysis. The governor said in a statement that 36-year-old Gladys Scott's release is conditioned on her giving a kidney to her inmate sibling.

(snip)

The medical ethicists say they're still concerned, even if the donation is voluntary.

"If the sister belongs in prison, then she should be allowed to donate and return to prison, and if she doesn't belong in prison, then she should have her sentence commuted whether or not she is a donor," said Michael Shapiro, chief of organ transplantation at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey and chair of the United Network for Organ Sharing's ethics committee.

(snip)

The sisters are a blood-type match, but it's not yet known whether they are a tissue match. They plan to relocate to Florida, where they have relatives, and future health costs would probably be paid by Medicaid or that state if they do not acquire private insurance. Kidney transplants are routinely covered by Medicaid.

The state parole board had previously denied the Scotts' applications for early release. The governor's office said their applications to him, which reached him on Christmas Day and mentioned the kidney donation, bolstered their appeal for release.

Full story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/30/AR2010123002930_pf.html

[merh]

1. It is not about what is just or right for the sisters.

It is all about getting rid of the cost of treating the sister with the kidney ailment and getting those types out of the state.

The MDOC budget is strapped. They could give the surgery and the care to both sisters (live saving organ replacement is allowed in the Corrections world) at the cost to the state and then release them if the release were truly based on justice.

A suspended sentence is not clemency, it is not "you served enough" - it is "we will let you go but if you mess up again, we didn't free you"

This is a bunch of crap and, as discussed in the OP, how do you ethically make giving an organ a condition of release?

[Duwamish]

2. I wondered if Barbour weren't trying to make himself a "compassionate conservative"

or at least sound like one to those who want to believe it. This situation is very sad - beginning with the original conviction. Life sentences for an $11 theft?

[merh]

3. The inequities in our justice system are plenty -

Some say you cannot buy justice but those people are naive - you have to have money if you want to know justice.

I don't think anyone who could afford an attorney would find themselves facing the charge these girls faced, let alone the sentence.

[varkam]

4. In my opinion, the deal stinks

The gov is of course trying to justify his decision on the grounds that it was the sister's idea in the first place, but this seems of little consequence. The relationship of the state and the prisoner is one of inherent power and coercion. I would say that, in bargaining for one's freedom, it can never fairly be characterized as an arms-length transaction. I'm sure many prisoners would gladly "volunteer" for all sorts of high-risk medical research in exchange for early release, but that hardly means that their consent is given voluntarily.

Prisoners or not, deserving of punishment or not, this is a transaction that could not, even on a good day, be characterized as ethical.