No state has had more serious budget anxiety attacks recently than Oregon, which saw some public schools close early this year after running out of money. However, another crisis surfaced in April when death-row inmate Horacio Reyes-Camarena told prison officials he would reluctantly accept the kidney transplant that would save Oregon taxpayers most of the $120,000 a year they now pay for his dialysis (and must, by law, pay until his execution, which may be as long as 10 years away, because of appeals). Some law-abiding Oregon kidney patients are being turned down for transplants because post-transplant drugs are too expensive. [Reuters, 5-27-03]

Ok I didn't quite get it but hey I'm not from USA so [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

okay so what's that got to do with the mass extinction thing?

People have gone nuts!!!

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
I know how you feel Arvon :D
</font>

so there paying alot, to keep alive someone on death row at the expense of the lives of other more needy citizens? has the world gone insane? surely put him in the place of someone on the waiting list, and give the kidney to someone elce!

What are they supposed to do? It's a tough spot. Don't give him the kidney at the expense of someone else, but they have to pay one way or another.

I thought a law passed a while back (maybe it was a state law and doesn't apply to Oregon) that you cannot give a transplant to someone who is going to be executed. I could be wrong though. It is a tough decision, but I would vote for continuing to pay for the dialysis and give a viable kidney to someone that is not on Death Row. Of course, IF an organ became availble and there was No ONE else who was a match, I supposed THEN it would be reasonable to give it to this guy.

thats what im saying. everyone else gets put on a waiting list. why should this guy get preferential treatment, especialy while he's on death row. i dont think anyone should be on death row anyway as IMO execution is barbaric. if he gets the kidney and recovers he should have his sentance reduced to life (real forever life). i dont understand keeping a guy alive you intend to kill. isnt that what tourturers do?

Recognize I am not advocating a cost/benefit examination here but I would have to think that the anti-rejection medications he would have to take for the rest of his life would come to cost about the same as his current dialysis.

The slippery slope is if we say that this person is undeserving of a transplant because of his past are then not obligated to examining all potential transplant recipients and judging their past behavior? Who will decide if a potential recipient is moral enough to receive a transplanted organ?

I have a good friend who has received two transplanted organs (kidney and pancreas) and is now leading a normal life. Paul spent ten years as a heavy substance abuser and readily admits to leading a less than moral life for those ten years. Was he moral enough to be on the transplant list in the first place?