QUESTION OF THE DAY: HEALTH CARE FOR CONVICTED MURDERERS

When a convicted murderer needs a kidney transplant, should he or she get one? What if thousands of working poor can't get the same level of care? Our convoluted and inadequate health care system sometimes means you might get better care if you committed a crime and were incarcerated; at least that's how I felt after watching last night's edition of Nightline.

According to Nightline's correspondents, Horacio Reyes-Camarena was convicted of committing a pretty heinous crime. He stabbed an 18-year-old woman to death. And that was not the end of the trouble he caused the state of Oregon. Two days before his sentencing, he and another prisoner escaped from jail. In the process, Reyes-Camarena fell four stories and eluded police for three more weeks. During the fall, he suffered serious injuries and now has such severe kidney damage that he must be hooked up to a dialysis machine three days a week, four hours at a time. His treatment while on death row, awaiting his ongoing appeals, is costing Oregon taxpayers about $120,000 per year.

Last month, Reyes-Camarena's prison doctor pointed out that he is a good candidate for a kidney transplant, medically speaking. But ethically speaking, should a convicted murderer awaiting a death sentence receive a kidney transplant?

Let's move beyond speaking medically/ethically and straight to logic. If it would cost tax payers less to get this cat a new kidney for his last few years (I'm assuming that his appeals process just started), then do it. Under the condition that he is simply 'holding' the kidney until he gets fried, hung, or injected. However, if it is more costly and the kidney cannot be used again, then he goes without.

Ethically, the dialysis machine keeps him alive, and gives him the opportunity to read some classic literature while he's waiting. I recommend "Civil Disobedience" by Thoreau or "Siddartha" by Herman Hesse. If we continue to speak ethically, it is only fair, just, right that he jump in line with everyone else awaiting a kidney. He should not get preferencial treatment because of his potentially short life span.

I agree with Matt, he should be on the waiting list like all others with no preferential treatment.

Taxpayers cough up the money every payday for who-knows-what, a lot of which goes to things the taxpayers never would agree to if they knew. Since I am against the death penalty, I believe we, as taxpayers, should pay for the incarceration and health care of the inmates. After all, they aren't living in the lap of luxury anyway (despite what some may think), many never had the opportunities in life to better themselves, many came from a horrible childhood only to produce behavior indicative of their "lack of decent upbringing".

We, as a society, should attempt by all means possible to help one another. Even if it means giving a kidney transplant to one who committed murder. The more society can practice compassion, perhaps the less murders society will produce.

Let him rot and die!!