This is something that came up recently in my Bioethics class, and I’d like to hear what y’all think. One state (Arizona, I believe) considered legislation that would allow a death-row inmate to choose the manner of his execution: lethal injection, or organ donation (not just liver and pancreas and such, but heart, lungs, the whole ball of wax). Everyone else in the class seemed to really like this idea.
I have some serious reservations about this. First, a surgeon would have to do the organ removal, and carving someone to death runs very very counter to a physician’s “do no harm” oaths. Also, while I acknowledge that the organs would be of tremendous benefit, removing organs in order to kill a body still capable of cognitive function just feels like state-sponsored butchery. As long as we’re removing body parts to kill someone, why not just bring back the guillotine? And darn it, removing the heart from a living person feels so… Aztec.
“Can we have your liver?”
‘What?!’
“Well, you’re an organ donor, aren’t you?”
‘Aren’t I supposed to be dead first?’
“Oh, poppycock. Somebody needs a new liver and we’re here to get it. Up on the table with ya! There’s a good chap.”
I think it would be a way to redeem oneself that many on death row would appreciate. Most have atoned to God, and are prepared for their eventual fate. Many are remorseful for killing loved ones. Why not heal souls as well as bodies?
Well, I’m pretty sure the patient would be sedated first. I mean, removing a person’s heart while they’re still conscious? That’s barbaric. There’s no way that would actually be legislated under the eigth amendment of no cruel and unusual punishment.
The only problem I see with it is its potential for abuse. I can imagine a rather macabre judge – perhaps under political pressure – saying, “Normally, mister convicted felon, I’d sentence you to life imprisonment without parole; but since there’s a shortage of kidneys this year I’m going to give you the death penalty.”
The best defense against this kind of abuse would be to require the state to secure the condemned guy’s permission if they wanted to harvest his organs.
Larry Niven wrote a number of stories on this them, the most prominent of which was The Jigsaw Man. Basically, he seemed to be opposed to the idea because he felt that organ donation as capital punishment would make the death penalty too popular with the public and virtually every crime could end up a capital one, as in “let’s see, my future health benefits from a large organ supply, so I’ll vote for killing people who don’t rewind their video rentals.”
Do you have some sort of cite for the assertion that most death row inmates have atoned to God? I don’t see it as relevant in any case. Then again, I’m not exactly a death penalty advocate to begin with, so I don’t see the manner of the execution as being the major concern.
This topic has come up in a lot of stories by Larry Niven. “The Jigsaw Man” was the least even handed of the stories. In the novel The Patchwork Girl, the characters really get into the debate with support for both sides.
IMO the main stumbling block to this would be finding a qualified physician who would perform the procedure. Most doctors would probably refuse saying that it violates the hippocrattic oath.
If I understand the proposed legislation correctly then the condemned man would have the option of whether or not to donate his organs upon death. I have absolutely no problem with this and can’t understand why anyone would. Basically they are giving the condemned the same right to donate tissues and organs that everyone else has. Unless I’m confused about the way the death penalty is carried out, by law a lethal injection has to be done by a trained professional who is employed by the state for this purpose (i.e. the executioner). Thus, the executioner would administer the lethal injection and upon the brain death of the condemned the surgeons would begin an organ harvest that is exactly like any other. It might require use of different drugs than an ordinairy lethal injection to insure that the organs are not damaged but it shouldn’t feel any different to the condemned man. I could be wrong about this, though.
On the other hand, if the state of Arizona is actually asking surgeons to act as executioners then this would be unethical for both the surgeons and the state. It would also violate the condemned man’s right to no cruel or unusual punishment to have someone other than a trained professional carry out their execution.
Also note, that if any state actually changed their method of execution from lethal injection to death by organ donation, then wouldn’t they have to call it organ taxation?
The way I understand it, a lethal injection is NOT first administered. A lethal injection involves three drugs, administered by an executioner (NOT a physician) by pushing buttons in sequence. The first is sodium pentothal, an anesthetic, putting the criminal to sleep. When that drug has taken effect, a second drug, Pavulon, stops the lungs. The third, potassium chloride, stops the heart. No one wants organs that have been laced with drugs meant to stop their function.
By “death by organ donation”, I mean that the criminal would be anesthetized and his organs removed, which, according to Cecil’s old columns, would involve peeling the criminal like a banana in the interest of speed. The criminal would be kept alive by machine (in order to keep the organs fresh) as long as possible, but would die as soon as the machines were switched off or when too little remained of the body for it to survive.
I’d like to add for the record that I am in favor of the death penalty; however, even though we desperately need organs in this country, I have grave problems with slicing up human bodies capable of full brain function in order to “harvest” their bounty.
I think it’s WAY too gruesome to get public support, even though technically, to the person being executed, I guess it would be as painless as lethal injection.
But can you imagine if the anesthesia was improperly administered? What a nightmare!
Heaven knows there are lots of ways to kill someone without damaging the organs. People die (brain death) and are put on life support all the time, and when they “pull the plug,” the option exists to harvest the organs.
If we changed the medication that killed the convict in order to produce brain death without harming the organs, would them being an organ donor like any other citizen in that situation be ethical or not?
This is analogous, IMO, to the issue of using cells from aborted fetuses for research or treatment of diseases. The point that pro-lifers make there - a point I happen to agree with - is that such use creates incentives, however slight, for society to continue to abort fetuses. In their view, it’s bad enough that abortion is allowed; it’s unreasonable for there to be a positive incentive for it.
Whether or not one favors the DP, it seems to me that there’s a danger in involving a state interest in the aggregate outcomes of DP trials. An interest in overall outcomes can frequently turn into an interest in particular outcomes, in the same way that the municipal budget can translate into a traffic patrolman’s ticket quota.
A powerful argument, RTF. What if it were solely up to the inmate to decide if s/he donates or not? I mean, you don’t see doctors letting car accident victims die just because they have “organ donor” checked off on their drivers license because the patient in the next bed needs a liver, right? So is there harm in allowing inmates the same choice the rest of us have, i.e., take 'em when I go?
I think, though, I’d side with your argument on the issue, and I realize the OP isn’t quite this scenario, but I’d still love to hear your POV.
I’m a staunch supporter of the death penalty and yet I vehemently oppose assisted suicide. Now someone suggests organ “donation” after an execution. It’s a lot to think about.
Organ donations, in general, must come from reasonably healthy individuals of suitable age. Taking the heart or liver of a 70 year old is a practice that will kill more recipients than it will save. Hence, we must be talking about “middle-aged” or younger prisoners.
Prisons have extremely high HIV rates. Since HIV has a silent incubation period of approximately 6 months, the donated organs stand a good chance of being HIV positive, even though they test negative for the virus. I don’t think that I want these organs inserted into my loved ones.
The method of execution must pass all sorts of constitutional muster. The two most common methods in use today, lethal injection and electrocution, leave most of the organs unusable. Lethal injection leaves the organs laces with dangerous and (surprise) deadly drugs. Electrocution tends to literally “fry” the organs. The key is that the executed feels next to nothing. Any change in the means of execution that spares the organs but causes any additional stress or pain to the executed would be subject to repeated court review. And I suspect that 11th hours appeals could be invoked over the means of death even when selected by the condemned.
I’m not opposed. But I see many more problems than benefits.
SouthernStyle
