Should death row inmates be allowed to donate their organs?
Turning down potentially useful organs seems foolish. Is it better to incinerate them or let them rot in the ground than to use them to save a life? It would be a shame if a life was lost when his organs could have helped.
I couldn't agree more....this country can be sooo damn stupid......
They're saying that the prisons would be corrupt and execute prisoners just for organs. This seems like something that could easily be regulated by consent forms, evidential documentation and verbal testimonies in court or with a board. Perhaps recipients can inquire as to where the organs come from before receiving a transplant. I think it's just paranoia that people would say this is a bad idea because of a corruption. There are too many prisoners as it is and if they could provide an upstanding citizen with life then who the organs came from should not matter, as long as the organs are clean and healthy. If anyone says this is a bad idea it is because of some psychological feeling and not based in logic. Organs are too precious a commodity to be picky about where they come from.
Agreed. Also, based on his photo, he looks pretty healthy. Probably has healthy organs. Why should we deny any human the right to atonement? I suppose they can't figure out a way to protect prisoners from being taken advantage of for organs..just rediculious.
I find it pretty incredible that anyone would turn down organ donation. It is unfortunate that he offered to stop his appeals if he could donate. That does make it look like negociating. But there are thousand of folks on waiting lists who could be helped by people like him. Any organ donor, when organs are taken are tested. If there is a problem like AIDS or hepatitis, then the organ is not used. I think someone is on their ethical/moral "high horse" instead of seeing the situation for what it is. If the person is going to die, let them and let their remains help those still living.
This is not a serial killer , this man killed his poor family and now wants to do something to repay society . Why not use his organs to save other lives.
ASK THE PEOPLE WHO NEED THESE ORGANS TO LIVE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The issue is not about turning down the mans organs, its about turning down his request, he gave up his right to any sort of "request" when he took the lives of those little innocent children (3 of them) and his wife.
and as for the legality, its either all or none, it has to be written that upon conviction, during your incarceration that if you pass your organs still belong to the state. For everyone, not as a request.
I have a friend whose brother-in-law is desperately in need of a heart transplant. If he doesn't get one in 30 days they fear he will die. I can guarantee they would not care where the heart comes from. If a prisoner is going to be executed anyway; if we are sure of his guilt; if he gives us his appeals; then it should be allowed. He should have to have a conference with a completely arbitrary counselor to be sure it is his/her true wishes. But, if all conditions are met this seems to be a win/win situation. It would be horrible to know people died who could have been saved if the prisoner was allowed to donate.
If you want to look at this in a twisted way... If the convicted killer is allowed to keep his organs... organs that could save 6-8 lives... Didn't we just let a convicted killer, kill 6-8 more people by withholding his potentially life saving organs?
Now some politician that won't allow this guy's organs to be used to save lives is an accomplice to murder.
I await a good argument of why this is a bad thing to do? The article was full of logical fallacies like unfathomable slippery slope arguments that would never fly. And this is coming from someone who admits the system is broken and corrupt. I also do not believe the death penalty is just. But if we are going to kill people with state money, lets at least let them decide where their organs go afterwards.
Taking the life from his wife and children tells me how much nuts and selfish he is. He is not looking forward to help someone else live... he just wants to feel better! He is still selfish and SICK insideout! Do not even grant him a glass of water. Just think about his children one second before they died.
There are two issues.
1. Donations as a condition. I agree that there should be no negotiation. This case is a bit unusual in that he is offering to drop his appeals if they allow him to donate.
2. Allowing the condemned to donate after execution. I really do not see a coersion problem if he offers AFTER the death sentence. What are they going to do, threaten to kill a deathrow inmate him if he doesn't donate?
He should be allowed to donate everything except his brain. Just saying!
I could understand if they were being sold but they are not and the person is making a last ditch effort to do something good with his life. It's all he can do. I say let him. Besides China executes prisoners for their organs with out consent. Why shouldn't we let prisoners sign consent forms. I do say it should be within the last couple of days or make it so that only the convicts lawyer knows for sure so the appeals process isn't tainted, but heck yes use the organs to save lives.
This should be about helping good people, not dwelling on what someone on death row is thinking or what his motives may be. When they are gone and someone can now live to see his kids and grandkids grow up who cares about the details.
I would be all for it, the question I have is do the drugs they use to execute them affect the organs?
Hiheels,
What does President Obama have to do with any of this? Stop and think before you type, please.
He should be allowed to donate everything except his brain. Just saying!
His BRAIN?
What would he be donating that for? A "brain transplant"?
Perhaps if he donated his brain, it could be studied and help give an insight into why he was what he was.
It's just another example of the most miserable being exploited by the less miserable. Prisons for profit and you want to trust the operators with ethical decision? Change this system. Evolve. Crime exists because of money. We must abandon this system. The money resists.
The article certainly didnt seem to make a compelling case for the state. The explanation sounded like, "Because we don't feel like it."
Correctional entities are notoriously resistant to change and open-mindedness. Their philosophy is that their job is to execute the laws of the state, and let the legislatures make the rules.
Adriana: He doesn't NEED to feel better if he gives his organs, HE'LL BE DEAD AND WON'T FEEL ANYTHING AT ALL!!! Give me a break! If you were desperate for an organ donor and couldn't find one any other way, wouldn't YOU take what this man has to offer.....who cares how it makes him feel!!!
ryoung1826
The issue is not about turning down the mans organs, its about turning down his request, he gave up his right to any sort of "request" when he took the lives of those little innocent children (3 of them) and his wife.
and as for the legality, its either all or none, it has to be written that upon conviction, during your incarceration that if you pass your organs still belong to the state. For everyone, not as a request.
The state has nothing to do with the organ donation process. Its through a company called Lifesource. This company figures out who needs an organ, where it goes, and which organ needs to be donated. The state has nothing to do with the process at all.
He would feel better going to his death knowing he would be helping others.
The macabre, unfeeling, unforgiving and unmerciful approach we have towards convicted people in this nation is amazing. The man definitely expressed remorse and sorrow. Our attitudes need to be somewhat moderated. The man is NOT an animal, and is still human.
We need to ask a question. Why does the USA have a far higher percentage of our population incarcerated than any other world nation, including North Korea, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc?? Could someone address this?
The man is NOT an animal, and is still human
WRONG!! Anyone who kills his wife and his CHILDREN in cold blood is an animal and no longer human. How can anyone with humanity do such a thing?
If this man is physically healthy, I see no reason not to allow the intended recipients the choice of accepting or rejecting the organs! By rejecting his donation the state is also condemning people who could use the organs!
Plus, he is saving themoney taxpayers who have to pay for the appeals! So many state officials want to blame their employees for the debts that they, themselves, run up!
u cannot tranplant a persons soul these organs are not goin to grow legs or posses a person to kill people
Wasn't that the premise of the movie Body Parts? I think it was released in the early 90's.
@David-717708
Of course he is a human! The acts he has committed are not excusable, but he is feeling REMORSE! He is feeling horribly for what he has done and wants to at least do something right in his life before he dies.
I fully understand why so many people think this is a good idea. There is a huge shortage of organs available for transplant and many people dies while sitting on the waiting list. On the surface, allowing voluntary donations seems to be a no brainer. However, I see a number of issues with this. First, this could lead to prisoners being coerced into donating their organs by prison officials, victim's family members, or others who have contact with the prisoners. Second, most maximum security prisons are not located near transplant hospitals. With organ donation being extremely time sensitive, fulfilling these donation requests could require transferring prisoner and carrying out executions in facilities that are not set up for that purpose, but are closer to a transplant hospital. This would cost a significant amount for the transportation and security of the prisoner. Another issue is the method of execution. The approved method of execution in most states is lethal injection. This injection is a three drug cocktail that would likely make the organs unusable. To change the injection content to something that would not damage the organs would wind up in years of wrangling in the courts and the accompanying delays of currently scheduled executions. Yet another issue to consider is what a twisted person who is sentenced to death might do. They could deliberately ingest a slow acting poison or toxin to try and kill more people, that is the people receiving the organs. After all, many people on death row are not exactly the most mentally stable people.
I am sure there are other issues that I have not considered, but these are just a few that would need to be addressed before any program allowing condemned prisoner organ donations could move forward. I am not saying that I do not support this in principal, it is just that there are a lot of things to consider and procedures that would need to be addressed before making a final decision.
Simple approach is to allow any inmate who was registered as an organ donor BEFORE the crime and conviction to continue if he/she so chooses AFTER conviction to remain an organ donor. AND/OR any who choose it AFTER conviction of their own free will. No prison officials should be allowed to ask or request organ donations from prisoners but prisoners who request it through their own lawyer should be allowed to donate of their own free will.
I think the argument is actually: Is he being killed to harvest organs? The answer is no. He is being put to death for the murder of his family. Once dead, he has met his sentence. His empty husk has no more say or status regarding his crime.
Regarding his empty husk: Harvest it for whatever can be gleaned from it. It has no conscienceness nor any connection to it's former owner. If someone or a bunch of someones can benefit, all the better. If it eases the way for its distribution by way of this jerk's permission--great, but I don't see where it's necessary.
When I have departed from this husk of mine, I will no longer have any claim to it (no matter what zombie enthusiasts wish to imagine). I have my current preferences to its disposal, but once I'm gone, I'm gone--do with it as you will.
As far as this murderous criminal goes, the sooner he "goes," the better. I don't care if his conscience is soothed, or if this is way of showing remorse. It's not about him at all, and the more he knows that, the better.
JS in SD: Why take one life when you MAY be taking 2 or 3 lives along w/ it? Let the prisoner approve the donation and if circumstances exist as you mention that makes the organ unusable, or incapable of use, so be it. But, why throw away those organs that are capable of use? An organ may or may not be capable of transport -- situations vary.
JS - There could be a counselor the prisoner talks to - totally unrelated to the prison - who decides if the decision is coerced or is voluntary. They have already found that one drug can actually execute the inmate without damaging the organs. Organs are routinely harvested in hospitals that are not "transplant" hospitals. It happens every day. They would have to set up a special room in the prison but that is all that is needed. And, we're talking a prison where the inmate is in solitary confinement prior to execution. His meals, everything he receives is monitored. Chances of poision getting to him is almost nil.
common sense seems like more of a super power nowadays than something a lot of people have...if it saves lives let him donate...i agree americans really are being real stupid
Personally, I'm all for him, or anybody being allowed to donate after tests are run for diseases. But those tests should be done no matter who donates if possible.
On a side note, would the person who received his organs be able to put up a defense in court if they in the future were tried for murder? Could they say in court, the organs from the murderer who gave me his organs made me kill so and so. I've heard stories of people who received organs only to acquire a new craving or hobby that is just like what the person who donated to them craved or enjoyed.
The real question is, how would you blackmail a death row inmate into donating their organs? Once we establish those scenarios, we can try feasibility and preventative measures from there.
Sounds like a win/win situation to me. If you are on a list for an organ...as long as it is healthy...you ain't gonna CARE where it came from.
Grisham, Koontz or King can write an incredible suspense novel in which the inmate has the exact match, blood type, and healthy organ (say heart, liver, lungs) to save the tiny baby daughter of the govenor of the state. So the govenor must choose between ethics and saving his own baby girl. So boys, care to step up to the plate? This one's a sure winner.
JS "First, this could lead to prisoners being coerced into donating their organs by prison officials"
I think your concerns dont outweigh the benefits. So long as we are not bypassing the processes already in place (appeals) and slaughtering these folks much much much earlier than normal so as to get our grubby hands on those precious organs...I dont see any issues with "coercing" prisoners to do something good for once in thier lives.
As for the transplants/medical facility - there are solutions to all of your concerns. simply because its not currently done, does not imply we dont have the brains to figure it out and make it work. where there is a will, there is a way. And the costs would be on the organ receiver...as they already pay for the current costs of their transplants. no different. you bring the hospital to the prison, not the prisoner to the hospital.
clearly you did not read anyone elses posts - or even the article? they've already got methods to kill folks without harming organs. and its probably cheaper than the 3 drug cocktail.
"They could deliberately ingest a slow acting poison or toxin to try and kill more people, that is the people receiving the organs."
Im pretty sure they test everything before transplanting...think of a person who dies in a car accident and is on the donor list. Do you think they just take the organs and say "here's hoping this person didnt have aids!"? That person is tested AFTER they died...cuz we arent psychic ya know.
I think more or less, people want to find reasons NOT to do this because they dont like the idea of giving this guy something he wants. In essence what is happening is that many people would rather 6-12 people die, than to allow this one guy a small bit of satisfaction before death.
That to me is insane beyond belief...and perhaps even bordering on evil and sick.
We must ask ourselves why anyone would oppose this proposal. There seems to be a question of moral and ethical standards. If the man is dead, there can be no question of standards violation with verification of his approval. The problem must lie elsewhere.
Perhaps it is the manner of the man's death. Bingo! Allowing this convicted killer to donate his organs opens up the debate anew about the moral and ethical implications of the death penalty itself. We simply can't have that now, can we?
To protect and preserve capital punishment, we must sacrifice the lives of those that this man's healthy organs might save.
JS it said in the article that it is possible to kill him in a manner that would preserve the organs. Honestly, it can be done, and it is not that hard.
You do realize when patients come in the emergency room, they are given drugs as well, in an effort to save their lives? Only certain drugs are a problem.
For Adrianna. His children are dead. They can't feel anything anymore. The 6-12 people that could use his organs are not dead. You say, think of the children he killed. I say think of the 6-12 people that would be killed by denying the request. The think of their families and the number of kids they have. Now, tell me... it is any less of a crime if you allow 6-12 people to die as compared to killing 4? If you think it is, then you haven't seen someone and their family go through the pain of dying from lack of a transplant.
For David. That's a physiologically incorrect statement. He is human. It's just hard for many people to accept that human beings are capable of such atrocities. News flash.... They are.... All you have to do is look back through a few thousand years of history to see that. Come to think of it.... how many animals do you see as cold and calculating as the worst humans. At least they mostly kill for food, survival, and territory protection. Not to many sociopath raccoons running around.
The only real issue this creates is whether or not the organs are useful after being subjected to the drugs used during execution. To solve this, you could allow those that are willing to donate a different method of death that preserves the organs.
I'm against the death penalty due to the way it's applied and the very real chance that an innocent person will or already has been killed. Search for "why Illinois removed the death penalty" in Google and you'll find plenty of articles. However, if you're going to kill them anyway, you might as well be practical about it and use what you can to help others. Anything less and you're responsible for more deaths.
We had my dad for 6 extra years bcause of a kidney transplant. While the donor wasn't a prisioner, it wouldn't have mattered to us. He's now gone but you can put a price tag on what we gotten in return.
This is crazy "we don't negotiate with prisoners"! That is so stupid!
Yes we would rather spend another couple million dollars of the tax payers money on fighting his appeals and let another 12 people die!
Unbelievable!
People are talking about the ethics of taking them from criminals because of the negotiation with criminals. They're offering up potentially life saving organs since they are going to be executed anyway. I don't really see the ethical dilemma. If an inmate wants to donate his organs, I say let him. I think it's less ethical to let someone die who could have been saved by a willingly donated organ.
They can say that they don't want to negotiate with criminals, but ask that of someone who is on the waiting list for organs and has been for years. It's easy to say it's not worth it if you're not the one waiting and hoping.
I agree that it would be lovely to accept the organs, give inmates that chance of redemption, etc. But the logistics are difficult--setting aside the ethical slippery slope China has modeled for us, the fact remains that prisoners are high-risk. I understand the desperation for organs, but the cost of reliably testing a population known for AIDS, hepatitis, addiction, prevalent rape... these tests are expensive and do not eliminate all risk. Former inmates cannot, for example, donate blood in the U.S. And what about damage to organs as a result of execution?
It says something that the transplant groups themselves are firmly against this plan and the precedent it would set, both ethically and practically.
What's to negotiate?
The criminal is going to die anyway.
It's not as if they will let him go free once he gives them his heart, liver, kidneys, eyes and lungs...
Taking the life from his wife and children tells me how much nuts and selfish he is. He is not looking forward to help someone else live... he just wants to feel better! He is still selfish and SICK insideout! Do not even grant him a glass of water. Just think about his children one second before they died.
Who cares what his reasons are if several lives can be saved? Don't you think it would honor his children, and his wife, if one good thing could come out of the horrible crime he committed? You can't deprive 6 or 8 more people of life just so he doesn't "feel better."
Our organ donation policy is misguided to start with. Instead of asking permission of the grieved family right after death, why not change the law so that organs can be automatically taken, unless the family specifically withholds permission or the donor himself has done so before death? If this policy is well publicized very few (if any) survivors will be unaware of it, so they can refuse donation if they wish. My understanding is that some countries now have this policy and, in those countries, more organs are available than in this country (percentagewise). With this policy in place--and well publicized--organs could be taken from executed criminals routinely without the accompanying agonizing debate over consent or ethics. Criminals or their family would still have the same option of anyone else or family members option to say no just like in every other case.
I don't see this as a negotiation.....the prisoner has offered to stop his appeals if he can donate his organs.....what's to negotiate???
anti:
the fact remains that prisoners are high-risk. I understand the desperation for organs, but the cost of reliably testing a population known for AIDS, hepatitis, addiction, prevalent rape... these tests are expensive and do not eliminate all risk.
You are correct, they are high risk, but that's something that should be relayed to the person potentially accepting the organ. Are they willing to assume that risk, even with the tests that they might not be able to eliminate it?
If the answer is yes, they get the organ. If the answer is no, they go back on the list, and the next person on the list gets the same offer.
Yes, the tests can be expensive, but are they worth less than that person's life, especially if we outright reject a perfectly healthy organ just because it comes from a high risk group?
And what about damage to organs as a result of execution?
There have got to be other humane ways to end a person's life without damaging all of the organs. Like it stated in the article, the inmate was willing to be given an overdose of a sedative, which would be much less likely to harm is organs.
I'm neither a doctor nor a bio-ethicist, but isn't "first do no harm" a guiding principle of medical ethics as outlined in the hippocratic oath? If so, would that not reasonably extend to harm done by inaction?
Granted, the hippocratic oath is more symbolic these days - versus legally-binding - but I find it odd that opposition from medical ethicists appears to completely disregard a fundamental tenet of the profession.
Nope. He should not be allowed to donate his organs. Let there be no doubt that when the state carries out the DP, it has no other motive.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/26/china-organ-donation-prisoners
Didi, you seem to be level-headed in this matter. We need more like you.
The prison people may refuse to negotiate with the man, but there is one area over which they have NO choice or NO control! The man himself decides whether he will go to Heaven or Hell. No one else can do it for him, and no one else has control over this! If he gets saved and forgiven by God, he WILL be in Heaven, and if you are saved, you WILL be there with him! No, your control is NOT absolute, although you may consider him and treat him as an animal.
E K, they don't let dogs in heaven, Valhalla maybe, but that's only the good ones.
Nope. He should not be allowed to donate his organs. Let there be no doubt that when the state carries out the DP, it has no other motive.
Interesting article, RainDaze; thanks for the link. However, I disagree with your implication that the situation in China is applicable here. There's far too much transparency and access to objective information in the U.S.
In a somewhat related note, I found the following stat in the article about Chinese organ donation/transplantation to be far more disturbing:
"...Professor Chen Zhonghua, of the Institute of Organ Transplantation of Tongji Hospital . . . told the newspaper that since 2003, only 130 people on the mainland – which has a population of more than 1.3 billion – had signed up to donate their organs following their death."
David, God stands ready to forgive and save ANYONE! If Josef Stalin had asked to be saved on his death bed, after he was responsible for the deaths of over 100,000,000 people, God would have saved him. If you want Scriptures, just ask. God's desire to save EVERYONE and his saving grace is all-inclusive and all-encompassing. Yes, even Osama bin Laden could be saved, but we all know he rejects the One true God.
If you want Scriptures, just ask.
No thanks, EK.
While I respect your right to your religious beliefs, I do not believe they have a significant bearing on an objective debate/discussion. Peace.
PDK
I did not say we are like china, I said Let there be no doubt when a state decides to execute someone, there is no doubt on motive. However as a follow-up:
China only admitted very recently that the organs of executed prisoners were sold to foreigners for transplants.
With ten of thousands of people waiting for organs I say let the convicts donate their organs. We spend thousands of dollars per prisoner to keep them in jail. Now here's a guy who's willing to stop the appeal process if he can donate and we have fools who say no!!! Maybe some day in the future they will need an organ transplant and a match will be available from an inmate. I'll bet they will sing a different tune then. We are not China, plenty of oppressive governments will violate peoples human rights. If we have someone who's fighting to donate their organs and we are planning to execute them anyway. Why is this even a question???
PDK
I did not say we are like china, I said Let there be no doubt when a state decides to execute someone, there is no doubt on motive.
Respectfully, RainDaze - when you make a statement such as that, followed immediately by a link to an article about organ donation in China, I think it's reasonable to infer that you're implying we could become like China. Otherwise, why cite China at all, let alone twice?
PDK
OK fine. I'll play. How are we different than china (see second link).
We do sell our organs now. If you havent the money, you dont get on the transplant list. From the article:
Living prisoners may be allowed to donate organs, but it’s decided on a case-by-case basis at the state and federal levels, officials say. Typically such donations are limited to immediate family members when there’s a confirmed organ match, with the inmate and recipient’s families agreeing to foot the bill for all medical and security costs.
Another way to look at it is, why are people from the usa not applying for transplants via china (like some Japanese are). Would you have an ethical issue with that approach?
You cant fully justify it via "well they are convicted in the USA courts". We have released many DP convicts via the innocence project.
RainDaze - I don't necessarily want to play, I'm just trying to understand your point. I sincerely apologize if that come's off as condescending, since it's certainly not my intention.
It appeared to me from your original post that you are opposed to condemned criminals donating organs because you believe (again, my interpretation) that it could lead to prisoners being coerced into donation, or that executions would be used primarily as a means of harvesting organs for illicit profit, as is alleged in the article you cited about China. My point, was that that seemed an extremely remote risk in the US with freedom of the press and other civil liberties not available in China. In short, I'm trying to discern the basis for your opposition.
RainDaze "I did not say we are like china, I said Let there be no doubt when a state decides to execute someone, there is no doubt on motive."
So why are the states currently executing prisoners? because they committed crimes?
Why/how do you see that changing? you're not really explaining yourself...and posting links isnt any explaination, especially when you jump on people for "misunderstanding" what the bleep your point is.
PDK
I listed my opposition on the grounds "let there be no doubt about the motive". From the article:
It’s been denounced in principle as “morally reprehensible” by the nation’s organ donation officials and medical ethicists.
a survey of organ transplant centers nationwide reveals that while taking organs from executed inmates is prohibited...
Update on previous china posts:
China has been making efforts to better regulate organ transplants. In late 2007, medical officials agreed not to transplant organs from prisoners or others in custody, except into members of their immediate families.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96DD6100&show_article=1
I'd like to say it all makes sense to me now, RainDaze, but that wouldn't be honest. Again, I don't mean any disrespect here, but your opposition as stated is vague at best, and not really applicable to this specific case (i.e. Oregon death row inmate's quest to donate organs).
Anyway, you provided some interesting nonetheless. Peace.
I'm with you, Didi...he'll stop his appeals(saving money, since those suckers cost lots of money) AND helping people in the process. Once he's dead, his debt to society has been paid, I don't see the big deal.
I'm not sure why people are assuming that negative slippery slope is the only way this will end..I'd love to get the reasoning behind the national transplants association not wanting to approve...
Let me put it another way. Society shall not benefit from putting its citizens to death. Surgeons shall not benefit from a DP case, pharmacies shall not benefit from a DP case, and individuals (highest bidder) shall not benefit from the state putting a citizen to death (note the requirement that all costs including security falls on the donor recipient in the cases of living donors).
We can speculate whether or not the individual would have become a donor without the crime aspect. But that would be speculation.
Prison, especially DP presents a psychological issue that is not present when you sign a drivers license donor card, or a grieving family makes such a decision for you due to an accident or even in some cases self injury.
There can be no doubt in a state sanctioned DP case that the motive for DP is only based on the crime committed.
RainDaze - if I understand correctly (an admittedly sizeable 'if') then we shall have to agree to disagree because it appears you're negating (side-stepping?) the issue at hand by instead focusing rather obliquely on the ethical merits of the death penalty itself. Put another way, the organ donation is the "fruit of the poison tree" and thus is automatically unethical. Your idealism is commendable, but I'm more of a pragmatist . . . and, I daresay optimist. That is, the death penalty exists whether or not I think it should, so if there's a chance that something like saving the lives of a half dozen innocent people desperate for an organ can come from it, then I believe it's more in fitting with the ethical spirit of the hippocratic oath. Call it situational ethics if you like, but I call it the difference between the classroom and the real world. It's been a fascinating discussion nonetheless, and I appreciate you explaining your point of view.
RAINDAZE, hope you, your family, or friends never need an organ transplant.
That is, the death penalty exists whether or not I think it should, so if there's a chance that something like saving the lives of a half dozen innocent people desperate for an organ can come from it, then I believe it's more in fitting with the ethical spirit of the hippocratic oath.
And in my opinion it is a violation of the oath. Organ donation from a condemned prisoner requires an adaptation of the method of execution to provide for the harvest of organs, rather than the death of the convict. We wont be able to use the drug cocktail because of paralysis of organs. One article I read described changing the method of hanging to accommodate the harvest of organs, but did not describe what change was needed. I suppose we could use the stun guns from slaughter houses to kill the brain but not the organs.
See, I dont think those in favor have spent much time thinking about the reality of obtaining those organs and I dont think it requires situational ethics, I think it requires a suspension of ethics.
Having a husband who rec'd a kidney that lasted for 19 years i absolutely say yes to donation. Our children had these years with their dad that they would not have had.
#3 - Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:23 AM EDTThink of all the lives that would be restored. I almost cried when I read Julie's comment. I am with her. My brother in law is in need and is on a waiting list. Our laws against people in prison is crazy. They go to jail, can't get a job when they get out because they have been in jail, they can't donate organs because they have been to jail, LOL, then we wonder why we have career criminals! The law should be that any prisoner who die is made to give up their organs! Then that way our perfect society would benefit from the prisoners they loathe! Oh, I'm sorry, prisoner organs are tainted!
#4 - Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:25 AM EDTWise one, how would you feel if your brother in law received one of your organs, after you have been given a death sentence for writing a bad check? It wouldn't take long for the death penalty be "For Sale" by the judicial system in this country.
Jim,
You are using an un-confounded slippery slope argument that actually denies life saving care to people who need those organs. This is academia social science morality bull@!$%# that gets people killed.
Jim - no one gets the death penalty for writing a bad check. What a moronic post. No one in the US gets the death penalty for anything less than murder - and often murderers get life.
What's the big deal??? If he want's to donate and signs a consent form I don't see a problem. Just put his brain off limits.
The main problem I see with this is the decision to execute people solely for their organs.
People shouldn't be on death row anyway, considering the massive amount of f*ck ups the DA has turned in. Have we not seen enough stories on MSNBC about DNA evidence overturning previous convictions?
Trust the scientific method. No bias, no opinion. End prisons. End money. Realize you are imprisoned as well.
Jim: First of all, NO ONE is going to get the death penalty for writing a bad check, get real!! And, if the prisoner is on death row and has exhausted all his appeals....it should be his decision if he wants to donate his organs. I'm MORE than willing to pay for the testing to save 6-8 lives, trust me!!! Losing those lives would be more costly, especially to the families involved. They lose a father, a mother, a sister, a brother, a breadwinner, etc. How much does that cost in the long run?
This is academia social science morality bull@!$%# that gets people killed.
What a terrific turn of phrase, BigRed. I also happen to agree with it to an extent. That is, I think Jim's bounced-check-death-penalty example certainly fits the bill, but the sentiment behind it still warrants objective debate.
Let's make more offenses punishable by death. That way we could have all the organs we want and the prison system could even pay for itself by selling organs to the wealthy overseas.
This could be a real money maker for the prison and medical industry.
If they do not overturn and allow prisoners to donate then the blood of every person on an organ list that could have been helped by it is on their hands. Then they should be tried for their involuntary murder and the new people in charge can make the right decision to allow it.
#5 - Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:29 AM EDTWith that logic, why not just call every person who isn't an organ doner a murderer, or the family of someone who dies and doesn't agree to donate the organs. Lets throw them in jail for murder. Its as asinine as presumed consent or mandatory harvesting that some people want.
I agree Evan, Most on here do not seem to realize the time frame involved in organ harvesting, if it's not done right after immediate "death " (declared death) then the whole procedure is for nothing as the organs fail fast. There has been too many cases too note where doctors once thought someone dead and even declared them dead only minutes later to realize they made a mistake.
This happens all the time, and it would scare the jeepers out of me for the U.S. to forceably harvest anyone's organs, people demanding presumed consent or mandatory harvesting need to blow it out the other pie whole, you can't tell me squat about my body nor should you be able to override my family. Following our current system it's OUR CHOICE, if you don't like choices move to china please, I hear they have plenty of organs to spare there, I will keep my freedom of choice ,thank you.
And as for no one seeing the corruption already in our current prison system , and saying not in AMerica , could our prisoners be exploited. I say wowzers at the naivety and lack of common sense there lol. Our prison systems are probably the most corrupt forms of government in the world, how do you think they get contraband in our prisons? Paid off officials, and if inmates can buy off guards and wardens alike , I'd say billion dollar harvesting firms and rich people would have no problems exploiting an already exploitable system. food for thought, not as easy as some like to see it
Also just too add to the debate as a whole ^^, but , how come cloning is still taboo, we have the technology now to clone any organ out there and it be an identical match to the person in need. Why do we continue to let religious loons slow down science and then try and come up with wacky things to fill the void science would fill. You people preaching for prisons to be turned into butchers really need to ponder this one lol, we have had this technology for over a decade now but because we are "playing god". it will never happen. So why isn't nuclear science playing god, or building other weapons to other wise destroy our planet, why isn't that playing god. You see it's all in the eye of the beholder, religion has hindered science for years, With out it we would already be star children , with it we look to butchering our own to save our richest few
Why not let the person waiting for the organ decide if they want one from a deathrow inmate? Why are the politicians and law enforcement idiots getting in the way of saving people's lives?
#6 - Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:38 AM EDTI disagree with all of you, whole heartedly. Although you will be able to close all the prisons because the only penalty for breaking the law will be death. No seatbelt=death, late for work=death, excessive sarcasm=death, me tolerating you ignorant bastards=death
Jim,
again you are stringing together nonsensical statements that would never fly. Do you actually believe any salient citizen would ever agree to any of the examples you gave? If you do I seriously question your ability to judge anything socially.
I am a nurse and Jim from Mexico obviously has not held the hand of a patient dying waiting for an organ :)
Jim has definitely not done a lot of things. He truly needs to be better educated and have some sense of reality.
Jim: What in the heck are you talking about? If you can't make any sense in your posts, please go back to bed.
Jim,
I think there's a little problem with your logic. You seem to be saying that the government would be so greedy for organs that if death penalty inmates were allowed to donate theier organs, the government would do everything in its power to get more organs that way. But if the powers that be found life that unvaluable, why on earth would they want the organs to save other lives?
Jim is a troll, people. For Pete's sake, can you not recognize one when you see it?
I don't see the problem with it at all. I mean, the prisoner is going to die, they signed the "Donor" box on their liscense application, if they die, they should donate their organs, yes?
Reduce, Reuse, Recylce, right?
If we allow killing like this in prisons, how are we squemish about using their organs? Is it a guilty conscience? I mean the person's dead. The organs are needed. How can we reconcile to blatantly doing the one thing and be grossed out to look at the other?
#8 - Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:42 AM EDTI agree, let the potential recipient who is about to die make that decision. If I'm knocking on heavens gate and don't really want to go thru any time soon, I'd take a kidney from anyone who offered.
On a side note. It really bothers me that these scum bags have their own Facebook pages, Internet access, and more amenities than most citizens. Put them in jail with NO TV, No Internet, No workout equipment, etc...Sorry, off my soap box now.
#9 - Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:42 AM EDTI agree with the fact prisoners should not have internet access....those places are the acception, not the norm, but please, do not think because they have tv in prisons they have it better than most citizens.....prison in a horrible, horrible place to be.....
Yes, and it should be worse. Maybe it would act as a deterrent. Bring back chain gangs to work on the roads, clean up trash, etc... It should be a living hell for convicted felons who committed horrible crimes. Now I do not think someone busted with one joint should be doing time at all much less in the same jail with murderers.
brewzky23 - actually in some states prisoners do pick up trash off the highways.
Shannon.....as it rightly SHOULD be. My problem is that they get too much. They are prisoners, after all, doing time for a crime. If it's a serious crime; i.e., murder, kidnapping, rape, etc., they should be held WITHOUT any TV, no internet, no special "exercise" rooms, etc. They get treated better than most people in mental institutions!!! If they did something and can't be rehabilitated into society; they don't need to have special privileges beyond 3 square meals a day, a bed, and exercise. Other than that, they're there to be punished....not coddled!!
Didi,
Punishment is an interesting notion in this case. Just being away from ones family, not seeing the kids, or not being able to go to the store for milk are considerable punishments.
The worst part, I would think, about being in prison would be having to spend the time with other criminals like oneself---whether that be a drug dealer or a rapist or a murderer or a bad check writer.
Prisoners who have some privileges like TV, the library, kitchen duty, prison yard maintenance and so on are easier to manage because those privileges can be taken away for inappropriate behavior. So, you see, that coddling serves a purpose.
The man or woman with no privileges has nothing to loose and is a danger to self, other inmates and the prison staff.
grump: Most men in prison for hard crimes could care less about their so-called kids as they typically have quite a few with different women and never support them anyway. They should be treated like animals with NO amenities. Try and use going to prison as a deterrent for once.
brewzky,
Your comment is partly true about men in prison for hard crimes. However, most inmates are not there for hard crimes.
As I said above the amenities are used as methods of control. If they misbehave, you just take things away from them until they change their mind. An uncontrolled prison population would be extremely dangerous to the prison staff. Even under the best circumstances, being a prison guard is a really hard and gruesome job.
I do understand where you are coming from, especially if you or a family member has been the victim of a violent crime.
Prison will never be a deterrent. Prison exists to keep them away from the rest of us for a while. I admit that the 'while' is often not long enough. Even the threat of going back to prison is not a deterrent to men or women on parole and they re-offend.
The notion of deterrent works for people like you and me. We have families, friends who care for us, jobs, a puppy and an investment in the community. The criminal has few or none of these things so going to prison is just another day like any other.
Does the thought of prison terrify you? I hope you don't even worry about such things.
Again, prison is not a deterrent to the criminal. It is a deterrent for decent folk like you and me.
The state shouldn't have the right to deny a donor's request. It should be anonymous so that no one would think the donor is being coerced or trying to gain publicity.
#10 - Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:43 AM EDTThe problem is not with denying a donors request. Its with denying a convicted felon. When a person is convicted and sent to prison, they basiclly give up their rights. Not to mention the fact that execution could very well damage the organs in the process.
If I had a choice of getting a mass murders organ that would save my life or just make it better ( an eye or such) you can bet the farm I would take the organ and never look back.
#12 - Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:45 AM EDTA no brainer: if I needed a liver to live why in hell would I care where it came from as long as it worked?
(But a problem: public officials who oppose something like this do not understand because by definition they have tiny little brains.)
#13 - Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:46 AM EDTCan his organs be used if he is excecuted using lethal injection?
Going back to the article, I believe that it was worried that the three drug cocktail used could render the organs useless, however a single overdose of anesthetics could keep the organs good.
A single 30 caliber bullet tearing through his skull would be even better.
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! His whole body will be poisoned (less than he deserves) so stop the crap argument because nobody will change the way death penalty is performed. Who thinks that inmates should have the "right" to donate his organs before death penalty are TOTALLY insane! those people do not deseve anything.
They need to suffer as much as their victims... at least!
Nitrogen asphyxiation is the best way to execute. There is no downside, except that it isn't "high tech". It doesn't damage the organs; it doesn't require a gas-tight chamber like cyanide gas; it's cheap; it doesn't cause any suffering/distress, the condemned just goes to sleep.
how will they be suffering less? wouldn't they be ending the suffering of other people? i mean, ya they may feel slightly vindicated by the act of giving their organs but who cares? what are you talking about "his whole body will be poisoned"? i am pretty sure they can kill him humanly and keep the organs in tact. By denying the use of these organs you are not making the prisoner suffer you are making the 10 people whose lives could be saved suffer. I think you are totally insane.
angry- N2 is a good way to go, you dont even know whats going on... you just fall asleep... and like you said no damage to the body
Recently received a liver transplant.Would not be here without someone saving my life. So whats the problem with an inmate saving a life???????? Hey you stupid azz ABSOLUTELTY NOT. What the @!$%# is wrong with you????
Adriana:
Who thinks that inmates should have the "right" to donate his organs before death penalty are TOTALLY insane! those people do not deseve anything.
I don't think anyone's thinking of his "right" to donate his organs. It's more about why are we turning down potentially healthy organs that could save 6 or more lives just because they're from an inmate?
I really don't care about his rights, but I care about the right to life of the 6 people his organs could potentially help.
Adriana: Once again, you're not seeing the picture. The prisoner isn't getting anything for donating his organs; he's not getting a "thrill" of what he's doing- HE'S DEAD!!!....but the person that gets his organs gets to live. I think that's a fantastic trade-off, but I guess I'm insane! I would LOVE to see how quickly you'd take a prisoner's organ donation if you were in the hospital needing a liver, a heart, a set of lungs, etc., and there was no regular donations. I bet you'd grab it in a heartbeat! Please stop calling people "insane" just because we don't ALL agree with you. We have a right to our opinions, just as you do.
What about those guys who would plead guilty just to get the death penalty and then donate?
Sort of like suicide by cop---they want to die.
Didi:
Yes, of course I can see the picture! For the state to agree on letting him donate his organs it would be necesary to change the way his death will be performed (that will not happen) and this is all about... this guy is "LOOKING FOR AND NEEDS A PEACEFUL DEAD" for what he did to his family(otherwise his organs will be literally poisoned)
Donating his organs is a waranty that he will not "suffer" or be in pain at the moment of his death that is all SELFISHESS. Also he would feel forgiven??? because he is giving life to someone else??? I would not cooperate letting criminals know that they can kill and get redemption at the end. HE KILLED HIS FAMILY AND HE NEEDS TO PAY FOR THAT... psycologically, phisically and in all ways possible.
If I were in need of an organ I would not trade my life for his "sanity". That would be telling him I don't care about his children and wife's death. If one of my kids would be in need of this organs I would rather pray to GOD for a miracle before accepting his poisoned insides for my child... I don't know if you get the picture, but mine is more moral than anything else. CRIMINALS HAVE TO PAY THEIR CRIMES! specially the ones who kill their OWN BLOOD!
Adrianna -
His death will be virtually pain-free in any event. That's why executions are done as they are - in order to comply with constitutional restrictions against cruel punishment. The man will be dead. He will not have suffered an agonizing death. How will sentencing 6-12 innocent people to agonizing deaths from organ failure make his life worse? How much worse can you be than dead? Donating his organs might make him feel better, but it certainly won't make his dead family feel worse. Nothing is going to stop his death. Donation, however, could stop death for others. If it is redemption he is seeking, he will need to take that up with God. All I am advocating is life for other, innocent, terribly ill people.
Adriana,
If you think about it you are really not much different than the murderer in this story!
If you believe in God and he (the criminal) has repented his sins then, he will get his redemption and forgiveness from God in heaven. So he will get peace in the end whether you like it or not.
If you don’t believe in god then in the end his body is just a dead carcass that will rot and his soul will not will not live on anyway. Therefore he has been punished for his actions by not taking up any more resources that other living people need.
We can all debate whether the death penalty is just punishment or not and we will probably forever. I frankly think that a life in prison is much more of a punishment than death. I also believe that life is a gift and anything that we can do to preserve it is a good thing. If we are going to be a society that punishes people that murder with death then why not give that life to others that need and want it.
Adriana, you seem to be a very angry person with many issues.... Glad I don't know you!
My fiance has CKD, his kidneys failed 20 years ago due to strept throat, since then hes had 2 kidney transplants, the last one failed 3 yrs ago, hes been on the waiting list since. he is considered a high risk. Hes on dialysis, & because of his CKD he has diabetes, hes had open heary surgery last year, restless leg syndrome, among other things and he is only 42 years old! I think its crazy not to take organs from someone on death row, other countries do. This dont make any sense, I know that my fiance is so sick & desperate he doesnt care who the organ came from as long as he gets to live a 1/2 normal life.
ADRIANA-and its not about giving redemption to a killer, let him think what he wants whatever, it about saving many lives that desperately need it. so what let him feel forgiven doesnt mean that he is, thats up to God to decide.
Absolutely not, who would want this scumbags organs. Fire his a@@ and end it.
#15 - Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:47 AM EDTDoes he have a heart? And if you took his organs, then killed your family could you sue the state or prison? Maybe his degenerate cells would run through your brain and no telling what would happen.
If they're working organs and you're facing death without them, I think you wouldn't care. It's all anonymous anyway; the recipient would never know.
Howdidwegethere - anyone who will die without an organ transplant would want this man's organs. You clearly are blessed that you aren't and don't know anyone in this situation. Unfortunately there are more people out there needing organs and few donors.
Brewzky23- clearly even a brain transplant would not be enough for you.
really!!!! apparently you have never held the hand of a loved one who dies waiting for an organ. think before you post
Another example of human pomposity regarding supposed "moral" issues allowing ignorance to triumph over obvious basic common sense because the people making the "moral" decision aren't the ones suffering and dying.
#16 - Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:48 AM EDTIf they're in good condition it should be required. The bad part is in the brain and they're not donating that. Save a life.
#17 - Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:48 AM EDTMaybe you've never talked with a person who has received a donated organ. The man I know (heart in this case) says he has changed somewhat in regards to foods (likes foods now that he never did before, has emotional changes as well). The brain isn't the only source of DNA, etc. Don't think the brain is the ONLY organ with which we need to be concerned about being donated. Just saying!
Yes, Nancy, I do agree with you that some of the "changes" of the recipient are altered after a transplant (my father was a successful heart transplant recipient for 12+ years). Some characteristics may be a little different than before the transplant, but this is not really that common. Let the recipient retain the right whether or not he is or would be willing to receive a transplant from a convicted person. He/She is the person receiving the transplant, so it should be his or her choice. It's just a crying shame to see people die because of organ shortages (just ask the parents of the 2 year old girl who shared the same ICU unit with my father who died awaiting the donation of an organ). Too many people lose their battle for life awaiting this precious gift.
Things are different after a severe heart attack too, but I wouldn't change the outcome we were blessed with in our family, so maybe stopping and starting things again might be the problem, not the organ. If a board of organ specialists say yes go ahead, yeah, let's save people's lives.
The parts are donated not the soul! That stays with them!
#18 - Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:49 AM EDTAdrianna -
I really have to wonder what your issue is here. How 18th century are you?
Adriana,
If you think about it you are really not much different than the murderer in this story!
If you believe in God and he (the criminal) has repented his sins then, he will get his redemption and forgiveness from God in heaven. So he will get peace in the end whether you like it or not.
If you don’t believe in god then in the end his body is just a dead carcass that will rot and his soul will not will not live on anyway. Therefore he has been punished for his actions by not taking up any more resources that other living people need.
We can all debate whether the death penalty is just punishment or not and we will probably forever. I frankly think that a life in prison is much more of a punishment than death. I also believe that life is a gift and anything that we can do to preserve it is a good thing. If we are going to be a society that punishes people that murder with death then why not give that life to others that need and want it.
Adriana, you seem to be a very angry person with many issues.... Glad I don't know you!
selfish bastards!!
#19 - Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:49 AM EDTNot only are they selfish, they already need a heart. They obviously dont realize how much we spend on them while they are in prison, why not use them
Toons...I agree. The taxpayers spend a fortune keeping these guys/gals in prison. We might as well get something back for all the money we've spent keeping them on death row for decades!!! If they are willing to give up their appeals; donate their organs; then let them!!! It's an adequate payback in my opinion!
Its not just one organ, but several that could save several peoples lives! I don't agree with what he done but at least his organs are not going to rott with him when they could save a few people who are actually free and have families that love them!
#20 - Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:49 AM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Reeve's legacy: stem cell researchDoctor ordered to pay for unwanted babyCoping with a health crisis, one click at a timeGetting your body beach-readyMaine middle school to offer birth controlDNA study seeks origin of Appalachia's MelungeonsAfter poisonings, PScreening finds skin cancer: Does it save lives?Pregnant women warned about antidepressantMore kids eating detergent packs, docs report
It's a great way to repay society. They're donated, where's the problem? The state has spent a bundle on him so why not get something back