DePaul Law Review Volume 65 Issue 4 Summer 2016 Article 2 Posthumous Organ Donation as Prisoner Agency and Rehabilitation Amanda Seals Bersinger Lisa Milot Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Amanda Seals Bersinger & Lisa Milot, Posthumous Organ Donation as Prisoner Agency and Rehabilitation, 65 DePaul L. Rev. (2017) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol65/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact
[email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\D\DPL\65-4\DPL402.txt unknown Seq: 1 11-OCT-16 7:37 POSTHUMOUS ORGAN DONATION AS PRISONER AGENCY AND REHABILITATION Amanda Seals Bersinger* & Lisa Milot** TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1194 R II. BACKGROUND ON POSTHUMOUS DONATION ............ 1196 R A. Legal Landscape of Organ Donation ............... 1196 R B. History of Prison Donation ......................... 1198 R 1. Blood Crediting Programs ...................... 1198 R 2. Living Organ Donation by Prisoners ........... 1199 R 3. Posthumous Organ Donation by Prisoners ...... 1202 R C. States’ Efforts To Allow Organ Donation ........... 1204 R D. Existing Arguments in Favor of Donation........... 1207 R III. OBJECTIONS TO POSTHUMOUS DONATION BY PRISONERS .............................................. 1208 R A. Coercion-Based Objections .......................... 1209 R 1. Allowing Donation Is Not Coercive in Any Meaningful Sense ............................... 1209 R 2. Coercion Objections Rest on Speculative Assumptions .................................... 1212 R 3. Coercion Objections Regard Inmates Paternalistically ................................. 1214 R B.