Stem Cells + living 100s of years + life in prison

[tolbiny]

So it doesn't have to be stem cells, it could be any new medical break through that allows human beings to live for 120+ years without a problem. Suppose we get to the point where problems like heart desiese, cancer, alheimers ect are all treatable (and even reversable) so that for a person to die they have to go undiagnosed or something "unnatural" like a car accident - what is society's obligation to prisoners serving life sentences - especially those with life w/o possibility of parole?

[Copernicus]

The commitment was made to allow the convict to live his "natural life". I believe some states even use that language in sentencing.

As a practical matter, withholding medical treatment from a prisoner is something that would never get past the bleeding hearts. Although the prospect of a prisoner living forever, because hes not exposed to the random hazards of life and gets free "stem cell therapy" (in whatever form that ultimately takes) might result in more death penalty convictions.

What should happen is consideration of the cost of treatment, rather than the PC mandatory treatment. Factored into that cost should be the cost of ongoing housing/meals, since the therapy could be considered to not result in a "natural extension of life".

[tolbiny]

Natural life is very vaugue, where does the cutoff come? If a prisoner cuts himself and gets an infection a simple shot of antibiotics will usually solve this problem that could otherwise end up killing him (although there is a lot possibilities inbetween). Everything from giving asprin to prevent heartattacks to cancer treatments could be construed as either allowing him to live out his "natural life" or to extend it into an unnatural time frame as he wouldn't have survived without the intervention of medicine. So where does the line get drawn between natural and non natural?

[hmkpoker]

Depends. What is the purpose of prison in the first place?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Natural life is very vaugue, where does the cutoff come? If a prisoner cuts himself and gets an infection a simple shot of antibiotics will usually solve this problem that could otherwise end up killing him (although there is a lot possibilities inbetween). Everything from giving asprin to prevent heartattacks to cancer treatments could be construed as either allowing him to live out his "natural life" or to extend it into an unnatural time frame as he wouldn't have survived without the intervention of medicine. So where does the line get drawn between natural and non natural?

[/ QUOTE ]

That ambiguity is why I used the words "could be considered"

[guesswest]

But, we already have this technology [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Depends. What is the purpose of prison in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

Without prisons we would have no where to put all the dangerous and treasonous ACers who go around advocating the dsmantaling or destruction of THE GREATEST GOVERNMENT EVER! If we were simply to shoot you in the back of the head you might become martys, and we also would not be able to force you into repenting before removing amoungst other problems that arise out of not having prisons.

[erby]

There was an interesting article i read in a magazine (i'll try and find it) written by the same guy who wrote Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs. It told a story of a man who was sentenced to death, and a few days before he was to be executed, he had a heart attack in his cell. He was rushed to the hospital and revived. Then he received lethal injection when he got out of the hospital. It was a really interesting piece...


ERBY

[jokerthief]

I imagine that they would stay there until/if they die. I don't see how this changes things.

[vhawk01]

The question arises when we have the medical technology to extend indefinitely the life of anyone who so desires. Should we keep prisoners alive, in prison, for 'eternity'?