We have discussed here the drive within bioethics and transplant medicine to kill and harvest organs from people in a persistently unconscious condition. We have discusses how euthanasia and organ donation are now coupled in Belgium. And we have discussed how Jack Kevorkian, before turning to the sick and disabled, went from prison to prison asking to use condemned prisoners in medical experiments during executions, in which the killing process would be slowed so he could dig around in their bodies before they died.
Now, the New York Times has an opinion piece by a condemned prisoner promoting organ donation from people on death row. From “Giving Life After Death Row,” by Christian Longo:
EIGHT years ago I was sentenced to death for the murders of my wife and three children. I am guilty. I once thought that I could fool others into believing this was not true. Failing that, I tried to convince myself that it didn’t matter. But gradually, the enormity of what I did seeped in; that was followed by remorse and then a wish to make amends. I spend 22 hours a day locked in a 6 foot by 8 foot box on Oregon’s death row. There is no way to atone for my crimes, but I believe that a profound benefit to society can come from my circumstances. I have asked to end my remaining appeals, and then donate my organs after my execution to those who need them. But my request has been rejected by the prison authorities.
Sorry, society should not be twisted in a utilitarian direction so Longo can assuage his guilt or give his life purpose.
Think very carefully about this. Do we want the society to have an increased stake in executing prisoners? No. Even if one is for the death penalty, the issue should be strictly limited to crime and punishment. Do we want prisoners deciding to give up appeals early–as here–so their organs are more uselful, because even if they win, they face life in prison? No. Such a system could subtly skew the system against justice and toward the view that the organs of these murderers matter more than their lives. It could also impact other condemned prisoners depressed or bored on death row, who would be celebrated if they decided to allow themselves to be killed for their organs–as in the adamantly anti-death penalty Times is facilitating by publishing this piece. Ah, the noble wife and family killer!
If I donated all of my organs today, I could clear nearly 1 percent of my state’s organ waiting list. I am 37 years old and healthy; throwing my organs away after I am executed is nothing but a waste. And yet the prison authority’s response to my latest appeal to donate was this: “The interests of the public and condemned inmates are best served by denying the petition.”
The prison is right. This would be terrible for society. The utilitarian ethic that I think is slowly poisoning our culture would seep into other areas of criminal justice. What, for example, if a prisoner in for life without possibility of parole wanted to die to benefit society–with the added benefit of money saved! Moreover, once some of us were so treated, the logic of the thing would quickly leap to the fields of medicine and health care–adding impetus to viewing some people as so many organ systems, particularly in the areas of assisted suicide/euthanasia and the food and fluids cases.
If we ever start killing people for their organs, we will have opened a Pandora’s box that will never close. This is a Siren song.
Post Script: Secondhand Smokette believes that anytime the fate of a convicted murderer is discussed, the victims should be named lest they become abstract and dehumanized. She is absolutely right and I was remiss in this post. Their names were wife, MaryJane, 34, and their children Zachery, 4, Sadie, 3, and Madison, 2. He murdered them so he could lead a more lavish lifestyle.
March 6th, 2011 | 1:20 pm
Wesley:
You surprise me. A liver is a liver, regardless of who donates it, as long as the donation was made with the donors full consent. The man may be trying to make amends for a heinous crime, or he might be doing it just for selfish reasons, but only petty spitefulness masquerading as “ethics” would deny him an opportunity to do it. There is no question as to his consent. Have his organs become “tainted” in some way because of his conviction? Would you deny an organ donor who dies in a DUI accident the right to donate his organs because he was committing an offense when it happened. And the claim that society will have a greater stake in executing people if the deceased’s organs can be donated afterward is just plain silly.
What it amounts to is that you’re willing to turn up your nose at an anatomical gift that might relieve 1% of the organ donation backlog in the condemned man’s area because of some imaginary possibility. And you claim to be “pro-life?”
I daresay you’d feel differently if it were you or some member of your family on the waiting list.
HW
March 6th, 2011 | 1:35 pm
In this case there’s an easy way to kill two birds with one stone: end the death penalty. There, problem solved.
John Howard Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
@safepres, Yup, and organ donation too. Because the same reasons that make it wrong for condemned prisoners make it wrong for everyone else too.
March 6th, 2011 | 2:52 pm
Darn straight. I’m pro-death penalty, although I have a lot of moral issues with it and wouldn’t bat a lash if it were abolished. However, we have it, and I support its use.
The moment we start harvesting organs from Death Row inmates, though, I’m turning anti-death penalty.
Human beings do evil things. They have to face justice. In some cases, the only way to ensure they don’t continue to perpetrate evil is the death penalty. (And yes, some people can continue to do evil things behind bars. Go to any maximum security prison – there are plenty of people locked up for life who continue to rape, murder, deal drugs, or whatever they did that got them in jail in the first place.)
The fact doesn’t change, though – they are *still* human beings, and still are entitled to basic human dignity. When we forget that all people, from conception to death, are humans, we start making it easier to use some humans as objects. That goes for the vilest man in prison as well. One guy may want to donate his organs out of shame or as a hope to continue to live on or whatever, but it’s too easy for our organ-strapped system to see him as a cash cow.
Raven Chukwu Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
@Tabs Fine, The man is going to die. He wants to donate his organs. I would have thought that acceding to his request would be a very good way of acknowledging that he is “still a human being” entitled to basic human dignity. He wishes to dispose of his corporeal remains in a certain manner after his death – but the State responds: “Your wishes are irrelevant.”
You write that “it’s too easy for our organ-strapped system to see him as a cash cow”. We would all like to prevent this from occurring but I don’t think that, in practice, it represents a real danger. Are judges likely to sentence more people to death to ease organ shortages? Will appeals be denied (or withdrawn as guiltless men stop protesting their innocence)? Will transplant surgeons infiltrate the legal system and subvert the course of justice? I hardly think so. It is rather difficult to conceive of a plausible mechanism by which these prisoners may be exploited.
Organ donation is entirely voluntary. They wish to do it. I say, “Respect their wishes. Save some lives.”
Tabs Fine Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
@Raven Chukwu,
Chinese political prisoners are sometimes harvested for their organs. The more money you can pay out, the better a chance that you’ll find a match over there, and a perfectly healthy person will be executed so you get matching kidneys or some such. It’s not like it doesn’t already happen, just not over here.
But here’s a thought – remember the female soldier that got put through the wringer when she was photographed posing with prisoners in Guantanamo Bay? The prisoners were treated like dogs, beaten, sexually humiliated, etc. As much as I hated the people who caused 9/11, the prisoners there had no right to be abused like that. Imagine it going a little further, though. How many people would have supported the idea of those prisoners being executed and their body parts scavenged? Right now, not many, but at the time?
I would *love* for this guy to be able to donate his organs. But not at the expense of his – or anyone else’s – humanity.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
Tabs: Not Guantanamo. Abu Grave in Iraq.
Raven Chukwu Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 1:25 am
@Tabs Fine, We’re talking about a prisoner in the United States, not in China. By what mechanism is he likely to be executed for his organs? Are transplant surgeons and patients going to influence the sentences being handed out? Do you feel that money will be paid out to hasten executions? In my opinion, it is not a well grounded fear.
And who would have supported the murder of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the parcelling out of their organs? Hardly anyone.
Your commendable concern for the threatened humanity of donors should logically extend to all such individuals. Surely everyone who consents to be an organ donor may be seen as a potential “cash cow” who is likely to be slaughtered when an opportunity presents itself. Maybe we should prevent the poor and disabled from registering as organ donors. And the terminally ill (who are certainly much more vulnerable than US death row inmates to the sort of instrumental killing you’re worried about).
In my opinion, the best way to respect a person’s “humanity” is to treat him or her as a free agent whose wishes matter and whose choices have consequences. A dying man wants others to get his organs. There is no reason to deny this request (unless of course he was turned down because many people are disturbed by the idea of having a murderer’s organs inside them)
March 6th, 2011 | 5:14 pm
safepres: I agree that the death penalty should be abolished. I also think that not donating organs after brain death is ludicrous; the dead do not need them, after all.
March 6th, 2011 | 5:50 pm
Another issue is involved with inmate donations: because of the disease risk, organ networks are likely to refuse such organs. In the US, having once been in jail or prison generally means automatic rejection of one’s whole blood or plasma. Hepatitis B, STDs, tuberculosis, and other nasties are common in the prison environment because of homosexual activity, homemade tattooing, drug and substance abuse, and other widespread unsafe activities, combined with questionable sanitation at many facilities.
I was a correctional officer for 10 years. Upon beginning that job, management strongly encouraged me to take the hepatitis B vaccine regimen. And I did. Quite gladly.
Inmate organ donation should remain a nonstarter—not only for the ethical issues that Wesley discusses, but also for simple reasons of public health.
March 7th, 2011 | 9:08 am
The problem with this argument is that the state and society is already devaluing this person’s life and violating human exceptionalism by sponsoring the death penalty. Now, he may very well deserve to die for murdering his family, but the state should not have the authority to decide who lives and dies. That authority belongs to a higher power.
March 7th, 2011 | 2:28 pm
To clarify: If we kill this person via the death penalty, than I don’t think it matters if we take his organs because human integrity has already been violated by the execution itself.
HistoryWriter Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
@safepres,
Sorry, safepres, but two wrongs don’t make a right. I think harvesting his organs without his consent would be wrong regardless of how he died. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with his donating them voluntarily.
HW
March 8th, 2011 | 5:48 am
To me, an essential part of human dignity is automony over one own body and mind. The prisioner wants to donate his organs and you have no more right to prevent that than to prevent him donating his money, his house or his car to who he wants. They are not your organs, they are his. He can do what he wants with them.
March 8th, 2011 | 1:18 pm
[...] other day, I posted a critique here of a commentary published in the New York Times by a condemned prisoner from Oregon who says he wants to donate his organs after execution. I [...]
March 8th, 2011 | 2:10 pm
[...] over his crimes that he wanted to be executed and donate his organs as a form of redemption. I argued at Secondhand Smoke that such a policy would be a bad idea. I mean, do we really want society to have a utilitarian stake in executing [...]
March 8th, 2011 | 6:00 pm
For readers who have the time and interest,
here is an Internet Portal dealing with:
ORGAN DONATION AFTER EXECUTION:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/P-ORGAN.html
This movement also has a Facebook Page:
“Prisoner Organ Donation”.
James Leonard Park, advocate of voluntary execution
followed by organ donation.
March 9th, 2011 | 12:09 am
For those who would permit this because it would be voluntary: there is no such thing as voluntary when your whole existence is governed by armed men.
While in this very specific instance it is quite likely the man’s donation would in fact be voluntary (even if this is part of some scam/self-serving fame-seeking), this is precisely the type of vulnerable population where ethics demands we restrict their freedom of choice to protect those whose choice would only have a veneer of being made freely.
March 10th, 2011 | 10:12 am
My take on this, which partially overlaps with the discussion here: http://alexirvine.blogspot.com/2011/03/capital-punishment-and-organ-donation.html
Glad to see this conversation happening.
March 14th, 2011 | 11:24 am
[...] Wesley’s first blog post on this, which I’ll be quoting later on, he blasts the concept – a sentiment I [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact