It is fair for inmates to be allowed to receive organ transplants. The reason I believe this is because inmates are human beings just like everyone else. True enough, they are people who have found guilty and convicted of one crime or another. But on the same token, this should have no effect on whether or not they should receive organ transplants. They are serving their sentence for the crime they have committed and denying them organ transplants would be another form of punishment. Regardless of the crime committed, no one should be punished more than once for the same crime.
The words prisoner and inmate almost always evoke thoughts of restraint and denial. It is ridiculous that Americans had to go to court to be able to exercise religious freedoms and freedom of speech. Inmates deserve the same right as everyone else. For example, Theriault v. Carlson ruled that "so-called religions" are not protected by the first amendment. The judges have no right to make that decision because he or she is most likely ruling on how well they can be convinced of a religion's "validity". Finally, in the case of Cruz v. Beto, it was ruled "persons who adhere to other than conventional beliefs cannot be denied the opportunity to practice their religion.".
The eighth amendment is one that tends to bend in favour of the prisoner. For example, Rhodes v. Chapman evolved because prisoners believed that "double-celling" was unconstitutional. This is merely a convenience issue and they are not in those cells for comfort or convenience, they are there for rehabilitation. Valid cases such as Hutto v. Finney, however, return to my initial point. Confining a prisoner to solitary for more than 30 day is definitely cruel and unusual. What could that inmate have done to warrant more than 30 days in the hole? As in many other situations there are negative and positive points. It just so happens that in the case of rights and privileges of prisoners, there is often a great deal more negative than positive.