Saving lives is unethical?

[smileyeagle1021]

Transplant group says death row organ donations ethically troubling
Okay, while I agree with them that sentencing someone to death for the purpose of getting organ donation is wrong, what in the name of Zeus's oversized butthole is unethical about someone who has already long ago been sentenced to death deciding that at least they can provide some pennance for their crime by helping to save lives after theirs is ended? The whole thing about how it is uncertain whether or not you can truly call the consent coercion free when they have "no alternative" is a red herring. What the condemned has no alternative on is whether or not they will be executed (and even then, with good lawyers, you can get a stay), the prisoner can just as easily say no, my organs are mine until the moment they are strapped down and injected, they still have a choice. My two cents, if this guy wants to atone for the life he took by saving another, then let him do so, it's his soul, not ours, let him decide how to best protect it... and innocent life being precious, he gave up his claim to life, there is no reason why his death shouldn't leave to multiple lives.

[Ginger Tea]

I don't know the effects of electrical or chemical execution on the organs as it's something I had never thought to look into.

If whichever chemical they use for lethal injections spoilt organs in the process then it is wrong to harvest them as who knows the possible complications.
Hell someone could easily survive one operation, but when having a 2nd to remove a damaged organ due to contamination they might not make it, so I would err on the side of natural causes for death until thorough research has either been conducted or if available studied.

I think there are still some people who think the old 50's horror trope is true, that a criminals hand attached to an amputee will be murderous or thieving without the body's control.

There are a few countries where you get zero say in the matter, if you die there your organs are harvested without any ones consent, even if it goes against your religion or you are a holiday maker, so if they had death row too I am sure they would be taking them just as quickly.

If he said he wants his organs donated, then let him, so long as his execution doesn't damage any thing, organ transplant is a choice, no one really knows who's heart they are getting (although the odd case appears I saw an image of a woman listening to another woman's heart and crying, the caption stated that she had received the others daughters heart and she was listening to it for the last time, perhaps they knew each other, but 99% of the time, they keep that info confidential.)

[s_stabeler]

chemical excecution is essentially via a fast-acting poison, IIRC, so I would assume they cannot donate their organs. But yeah, assuming the method of execution doesn't damage the organs, let them be donated if it is the choice of the excecuted prisoner.

[Andara Bledin]

chemical excecution is essentially via a fast-acting poison, IIRC, so I would assume they cannot donate their organs. But yeah, assuming the method of execution doesn't damage the organs, let them be donated if it is the choice of the excecuted prisoner.

From what I understand, chemical execution is just a sedation overdose, which should have no real affect on the person's organs.

[Aethian]

If they are on death row and wish to donate all viable organs. Shouldn't they have the choice of being put under sedation, having the organs harvested from them while alive and then allowing them to die? Or would that be considered a murder/suicide?

[Andara Bledin]

The biggest problem is that we would have to avoid even the appearance of impropriety when it comes to capital punishment.

Considering how often we fuck it up, I don't think it should even be on the table. But that's a side issue.

When there comes a value on putting people to death, then even if everything is above board, there is no way to prove that there wasn't impropriety somewhere down the line from before conviction.

We already have too many cops deciding who is guilty before the investigation even gets started. They don't need even more incentive to fail their investigations than is already present.

[s_stabeler]

the thing is, this is convicts choosing to donate their organs. It's not requiring convicts to donate their organs. To be blunt, it is the exact same tired, long disproved argument used against organ donation: that the people responsible for donations would let someone die for their organs. It has never happened, and will never happen under current medical ethics. It's also illogical, because the convicts are choosing to donate their organs AFTER they are convicted. The execution has nothing to do with donation. The person would die ANYWAY at the same time.

And Andara, there is sedation involved, but most commonly, they use a sedative, a paralytic, and a drug that stops the heart. I'm wondering if those drugs could be transferred to the person receiving an organ, is all.

[Andara Bledin]

The thing is that unless they were already donors prior to being convicted, there is no way to be 100% certain that they actually are choosing to do so of their own free will.

Now, it's highly unlikely (a probability very close to 0) that anyone is being coerced, but the fact remains that it having happened at least once is almost a certainty.

[s_stabeler]

um, that doesn't follow. There is no incentive for anybody involved in the process to lie about it. Not to mention, to be quite honest? the benefit of allowing prisoners to donate outweighs the minimal risk of abuse. ( there is a significant benefit ( less patients die while awaiting organs) while there is an unmeasurably small chance of someone having their organs harvested without consent)

On the other hand, I am a supporter of opt-out donor registration, where you have to specify you don't want to donate your organs, so I will admit I am probably biased. (Most people want to donate their organs, but can't be bothered to go on the donor registry. If people don't want to donate, then fine, fill out the form that says you don't want your organs donated)

[Ginger Tea]

If they are on death row and wish to donate all viable organs. Shouldn't they have the choice of being put under sedation, having the organs harvested from them while alive and then allowing them to die? Or would that be considered a murder/suicide?

I hope no one in the medical profession is OK with the idea of harvesting organs from a live patient as a form of execution.
It reads like a rejected sequel to Hostel aesthetic or not.

[fireheart17]

From what I understand, chemical execution is just a sedation overdose, which should have no real affect on the person's organs.

Some States use a one-drug overdose, some States use a three-drug cocktail. The third drug used would likely ruin a heart, the second drug may possibly ruin the lungs.

Those that choose to die via the gas chamber cannot donate their organs due to the use of hydrogen cyanide as the gas of choice.

Electrocution also ruins the organs for transplant.

I hope no one in the medical profession is OK with the idea of harvesting organs from a live patient as a form of execution.
It reads like a rejected sequel to Hostel aesthetic or not.

That is creepy.

[s_stabeler]

the three-drug cokctail is usually Sodium Theopentol, to induce unconciousness, Pancuronium Bromide ( which SHOULDN'T ruin the lungs, it acts on the diaphragm) and Potassium chloride. They are moving to either juts sodium Theopentol or phenobarbiturates, unfortunately, the manufacturers of both actually won't sell it to anybody likely to use it for lethal injections i humans, so i'm not sure where they get it from. The single-drug cocktail shouldn't cause issues for transplant, though.

[smileyeagle1021]

Also, not mentioned so far has been that there is a litany of organs not effected... the convict is dead before any material amount of poison would reach the kidneys or liver, bone marrow would likely be untouched, skin tissue wouldn't be affected at all (except perhaps the gas chamber where the poison may saturate the skin). Just because heart and lung transplants are normally the most critical and get the most attention doesn't mean that they are the only organs necessary to save/improve lives.

I do agree though that organ harvesting as a means of execution really is an ethical gray area that I'm not sure we want to go into. In terms of cruelty, I don't think it is any more cruel than lethal injection... either way, if it works as intended, the patient is put under sedation and simply never wakes up from the sedation. That said, the person who does the injection does not necessarily need to be a doctor, merely a tech, one whom has not been required to take the Hippocratic Oath, but there is no way to do the surgery without using doctors who would be violating that oath in doing so.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm not sure I would *want* organs from some serial killer. I've seen that movie. I know how this turns out. Sure, you get a life saving new kidney. But next thing you know you've got a mailman and two pizza delivery boys locked up in the basement while you Google leather tanning.

[Andara Bledin]

I hope no one in the medical profession is OK with the idea of harvesting organs from a live patient as a form of execution.
It reads like a rejected sequel to Hostel aesthetic or not.

There are actually medical professionals who want to revisit brain death organ harvesting as potentially unethical. I don't have the article handy, but it was a fascinating and unsettling read.

We don't harvest organs from living patients, but we come pretty damn close.