- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 27,392
- Reaction score
- 20,164
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Where is the violation?
Cruel and unusual punishment, I would think.
Where is the violation?
Cruel and unusual punishment, I would think.
I voted "He should stay in prison and get the transplant if he can raise the money." If any regular law abiding citizen needed a hearty transplant wouldn't we have to be put on a waiting list and pay for it ourselves? So why should someone in prison especially for something extremely despicable get a free heart transplant while everybody else has to pay for theirs?
Heart transplant is not basic. Besides that a child molester put himself in prison.Because they are a ward of the state, and all of their basic needs are the responsibility of the states.
I would think this goes above and beyond "basic", though. It does seem somewhat counter-intuitive that the best way for someone of "limited means" to get this surgery is by being in prison.Because they are a ward of the state, and all of their basic needs are the responsibility of the states.
Heart transplant is not basic. Besides that a child molester put himself in prison.
I would think this goes above and beyond "basic", though. It does seem somewhat counter-intuitive that the best way for someone of "limited means" to get this surgery is by being in prison.
Because they are a ward of the state, and all of their basic needs are the responsibility of the states.
not a ward of the state, a prisoner of the state....and heart transplants are not a basic need.
we let people die all the time, why should a perv get any preference?
Same thing really, and necessary medical needs are a basic need, and heart transplants is a necessary medical need. It would be unconstitutional to not give him the same treatment any other prisoner would get, because of his crime.
true, so all criminals suffer the same....have his relatives on the outside do fund raisers like they do for innocent children with cancer.....
Thanks, I think it's an interesting question. I probably should have made it multiple choice. I'm actually torn myself between letting him have the transplant if he can pay for it and not letting him have it at all. I think if he were released, for sure the tax payers should not have to pay for it.
What if he were on death row (say he killed his victim)? Would your answer change?
What's funny is I used "child molester" in an attempt to use the least possible incindiery term. I coulda called him a kiddy diddler, child rapist or sexual predator (<----this one is an actual valid description).
I don't disagree with you for the most part, but I think child molesters are the lowest of the low. I think I could probably overlook any other crime, even murder, when looking at who gets a heart, but sex offenders are in a class all by themselves.
Technically he is a ward of the state, and the state is responsible for all prisoners well being, and I think not treating a medical issue just because they are a heinous criminal, I think would violate the constitution, so I think he should get the transplant.
Denying the medically necessary procedure would be akin to imposing a death sentence and we do not have the death penalty for child molestation in this country. The Constitution does not allow for it.