This article touches on the topic of healthcare for death-row inmates and whether they should be able to receive standardized medical treatments and in this case, a spot on a kidney transplant list. A death row prisoner in Oregon is currently undergoing dialysis for his kidney disease and if he is able to get a kidney transplant, the state could save up to $20,000 amidst the budget crisis. Based on the humanity formulation, Kantians would say that the state should not treat death row inmates as mere means to an end (saving money for the state) because after all, they are rational beings. Utilitarians would most likely object inmates being on the transplant list because the incarcerated only makes up a small percent of a population and would…show more content… However, what is good for one patient will not necessary be good for another patient. If a convicted individual is given a kidney, then a law-abiding individual is deprived of one healthy kidney. Many Americans suffer from kidney-related disorders and are waiting in queue for a healthy kidney. UNOS transplant list is categorized based on the severity of the recipient’s condition, the types of organ transplanted, and the percent of match with the donor organs. Most of the inmates in need of expensive medical procedures are very sick compared to the non-institutionalized population and are usually older due to the lengthy appeal process. The tension is between inmate’s constitutional rights to have access to healthcare and the public’s opinion that inmates should only receive standardized/basic healthcare because they have committed heinous crimes. Tight budgets and limited resources also place prison and healthcare systems in a difficult position. The question at hand is the allocation of resources and non-readily available
