This. As a society, we have a responsibility to keep the man alive. He is detained and has no ability to attain health coverage through other means. An ugly necessity but one we have to uphold. It's part of the agreement we make as a society to not treat prisoners cruelly and to let the courts decide their fate instead of leaving everything to vigilante justice.

I suspect many people in this thread complaining about his medical costs haven't really thought this through entirely. What about a guy who was given ten years for robbery and needs a heart transplant nine years into his term? Should he die? What exceptions to we make to this rule and who decides how to enforce them?

I've never seen a government agency be given "exceptions" to rules where it has handled them properly. The only alternative is to give everyone care and just swallow that bitter pill.

This. As a society, we have a responsibility to keep the man alive. He is detained and has no ability to attain health coverage through other means. An ugly necessity but one we have to uphold. It's part of the agreement we make as a society to not treat prisoners cruelly and to let the courts decide their fate instead of leaving everything to vigilante justice.

I suspect many people in this thread complaining about his medical costs haven't really thought this through entirely. What about a guy who was given ten years for robbery and needs a heart transplant nine years into his term? Should he die? What exceptions to we make to this rule and who decides how to enforce them?

I've never seen a government agency be given "exceptions" to rules where it has handled them properly. The only alternative is to give everyone care and just swallow that bitter pill.

The government has the responsibility to preserve the status-quo of inmate’s health; they should not be expected to go to extraordinary lengths to improve the health of someone who is in prison.

While I think it would be immoral and unjustifiable to allow a prisoner to die because he didn’t have access to readily available inexpensive medical care, it is entirely reasonable to say that medical procedures that will cost $800,000 are far above and beyond what is required of the state to provide inmates.

And actually why do we have this responsibility?

Money and organs for transplantation are limited resources and a lot of normal paying taxes people don't get them. Why should criminals be in favourable position in this case?

The government has the responsibility to preserve the status-quo of inmate’s health; they should not be expected to go to extraordinary lengths to improve the health of someone who is in prison.

While I think it would be immoral and unjustifiable to allow a prisoner to die because he didn’t have access to readily available inexpensive medical care, it is entirely reasonable to say that medical procedures that will cost $800,000 are far above and beyond what is required of the state to provide inmates.

And who gets to make that call? Are you comfortable letting the government decide who lives and who dies?

I'm not.

And in this case, the "status quo" means this man dies. That's not a "status quo of health" AT ALL.

It's the humane and right thing to do.

We're the ones holding him so we're the ones that have to take care of him to a reasonable extent.  Since he's being held against his will, he can't go out and provide for himself so we have to provide for him.  Of course I think he should incur some sort of debt when he is released but that's another story.