• Whitney Hinkle.
• Indiana University School of Law--Indianapolis, IN, USA.
• Indiana Law Rev. 2002 Jan 1;35(2):593-619.

AbstractThis Note argues that prisoners, whether executed or living, should not become organ donors. The introduction acknowledges the shortage of transplantable organs in the United States and the steps that have been taken to ameliorate the crisis. Part I discusses the procurement of organs from executed prisoners, beginning with a brief examination of China, a country where this type of procurement is routinely practiced. Part I also examines organ procurement legislation pertaining to executed prisoners. Finally, Part I asserts the reasons that prisoners should not become donors, including the dead donor rule, the ban against physicians as executioners, the Oath of Hippocrates, the risk of transmissible diseases, and the negative perception that would result if organ procurement was tied to executions. Part II of this Note discusses prisoners donating their organs in return for mitigated sentences. Part II then argues that this practice should not be adopted because of the lack of informed consent and voluntary choice. Finally, Part III of this Note introduces potential solutions to the possibility of maintaining a voluntary system, moving to a presumed consent system, and using financial inducements to create a larger supply of transplantable organs.

33 keywords...

hide…