Saving lives is unethical?

[s_stabeler]

Um, brain death IS death. I don't see the ethical issues there... Not to mention, that would ban possibly the most reliable transplant organs AFAIK. ( from what little I know, if the blood is still being pumped around the body, it prolongs the life of the transplant organ ( basically, the clock starts ticking from when blood-flow stops)

[Andara Bledin]

Brian death is considered death, but it is not death, thus the fact that it isn't simply called death.

It's worth noting that some who are taken off of ventilators who subsequently die do so due to medications they receive and not because they cannot survive off of the ventilator.

The article is HERE. It actually argues that the Dead Donor rule is already being violated routinely, so there's really no reason other than squeamishness to not harvest organs from such donors before true death.

Which is actually directly related to the question at hand: Is it ethical to put someone to death via organ removal under anesthetic as opposed to chemical execution?

According to the article, current practice isn't really as far from this as most of us think.

[bainsidhe]

I feel like there's too much potential for abuse. A prisoner is at the mercy of the prison and is therefore susceptible to the bias of his/her surroundings. I've read about teachers helping kids cheat in order to improve school test scores. Contracts awarded to a particular business in exchange for political favor. If there is a value to something, there is someone somewhere willing to break the rules. And it's scary to think a human being could be coerced into giving up their own organs when they don't want to.

To me it's not about this one case, it's about all prisoners and the potential for abuse. Slippery slope.

[smileyeagle1021]

And it's scary to think a human being could be coerced into giving up their own organs when they don't want to.

Part of me asks if we should even care?
After all, the whole purpose of capital punishment is that the person's crimes are so heinous that they have forfeited all of their rights, even the right to life... wouldn't the right to opt in or out of organ donation fall under "all their rights"?
It's not as if we are talking about poor little miss Susie down the street who fell off her bike while delivery Girl Scout cookies who is facing a forced organ donation, we're talking about people who have been deemed to literally have no redeeming value. At least as an organ donation they can give something back to the society they took so much from.
eta- this is not to say that I support forced organ donation, but I don't know if I'd oppose it either. At the worst this article is about coerced donation, which I fail to see how that is somehow worse than the fact that the person has already been condemned to death... once they're gone, they aren't going to use them anymore... and to be blunt, if they have a deeply held religious belief about the sanctity of their body staying in tact after death, most likely that will be low on the list of things that their God is going to be calling them to account for.

[Panacea]

OK, a few thoughts.

In regards to prisoners executed by lethal injection:

It doesn't matter what is used to perform the execution. In order to transplant organs, you have to keep the core organs perfused with oxygen. That involves using a ventilator. However, by definition, brain death has to occur before you can transplant. There is no ethical way to achieve brain death while preserving enough brain stem function (required to keep the heart beating) to keep the organs alive long enough to transfer the inmate to a hospital operating room.

Many state medical boards forbid physicians from being involved in executions, so doing them in the hospitals is not an option. Even if the state did allow it, the ethical and PR ramifications are pure poison.

If potassium is used in the execution, it might damage the organs. The other drugs shouldn't make a difference.

However, other tissues could be donated: corneas, tendons, skin, bone. It's amazing how many people can be helped enjoy a better quality of life with just one donation. It's not just the life saving organs that matter. Organ donation helps people see. Helps people regain their mobility. Helps them heal from massive burns.

The problem with using prisoners for organ donation is that because they are in state custody they are legally wards of the state. That means they really can't make informed consent, and the issue of coercion is always present.

Using prisoners will never be ethical. I'm not sure what this guy's motivations are; they may be perfectly honorable. But he can't and shouldn't be accommodated.

[SongsOfDragons]

Dumplings, to throw in another point of interest into the discussion...

There is an article up on the BBC (I'm sorry, I can't acually get to link to it at the.moment >.<) which is talking about the increasing problem surrounding lethal injection executions, which is the unavailability of the drugs in question. I'll try to paraphrase from memory: Suppliers, especially those in Europe, have stopped supplying thiopental to the US because they refuse to facilitate executions - and the same is approaching for pentobarbital, forcing prisons to go elsewhere for drugs to use in executions, which may not be as ethical purity-wise and other things.

IIRC.

If you don't know what drug's going in...

[Nekojin]

The problem with using prisoners for organ donation is that because they are in state custody they are legally wards of the state. That means they really can't make informed consent, and the issue of coercion is always present.

This is the essential core of the matter. And ultimately, it's a pretty tiny issue to be wasting taxpayer dollars over, given the moral hazards - although we have over 3000 people on Death Row in the US, we execute a tiny, tiny fraction of those - we're talking 43 people executed in the US in 2012.

43 transplant donors (even assuming that all 43 expressed consent) is trivial enough to not worry about. It would be a better use of everyone's time to try to get more people to make their donor preference known at a young age - get more twenty-somethings to affix that "Donor" applique to their driver's licenses, or state clearly in their will that the body would be donated. Approached correctly, this would reap far greater dividends than what you could get from Death Row inmates.

[Nekojin]

Dumplings, to throw in another point of interest into the discussion...

There is an article up on the BBC (I'm sorry, I can't acually get to link to it at the.moment >.<) which is talking about the increasing problem surrounding lethal injection executions, which is the unavailability of the drugs in question. I'll try to paraphrase from memory: Suppliers, especially those in Europe, have stopped supplying thiopental to the US because they refuse to facilitate executions - and the same is approaching for pentobarbital, forcing prisons to go elsewhere for drugs to use in executions, which may not be as ethical purity-wise and other things.

IIRC.

If you don't know what drug's going in...

IMO, a bullet to the head would be a far more efficient and cost-effective solution. While the bullet to the head method can be messy, there's no shortage of bullets out there.

I've heard objections to this around the idea that it's traumatic to the person who is "forced" to pull the trigger, but I can't see how this is a real impediment. No matter how you slice it, you've always got someone pulling the trigger, throwing the switch, pressing the button, or otherwise making the conscious action to take someone's life.

[Aethian]

Guillotine would work to. And a machine could be the one pulling the trigger.

[crashhelmet]

But those are forms of "Cruel and Unusual" punishment. Firing squads, hangings, electrocution, and even the gas chamber have been deemed too cruel and painful for the condemned and thus its constitutionality has been questioned.

All 35* states that currently approve the capital punishment, as well as the US military and US Government, have Lethal Injection as their primary, or sole, method of execution.

This way they go peacefully, in their sleep.

*New Mexico, Connecticut, and Maryland all abolished the Death penalty in the last few years, but did not make it retroactive. All Death Row inmates sentenced prior to the abolition are still condemned to die.

[Panacea]

But those are forms of "Cruel and Unusual" punishment. Firing squads, hangings, electrocution, and even the gas chamber have been deemed too cruel and painful for the condemned and thus its constitutionality has been questioned.

*New Mexico, Connecticut, and Maryland all abolished the Death penalty in the last few years, but did not make it retroactive. All Death Row inmates sentenced prior to the abolition are still condemned to die.

Actually, firing squads and hanging are options in quite a few states; most inmates opt for lethal injection. Electrocution is still in option in a couple of southern states but is seldom chosen. No one has a functioning gas chamber anymore; they are dangerous to those around them and hard to maintain.

Virginia electrocuted an inmate in 2013 (this year). Utah used a firing squad in 2010. New Hampshire and Washington still allow hanging, although it hasn't been done in decades.

So it wouldn't be impossible to drop lethal injection.

[crashhelmet]

Actually, firing squads and hanging are options in quite a few states; most inmates opt for lethal injection. Electrocution is still in option in a couple of southern states but is seldom chosen. No one has a functioning gas chamber anymore; they are dangerous to those around them and hard to maintain.

Virginia electrocuted an inmate in 2013 (this year). Utah used a firing squad in 2010. New Hampshire and Washington still allow hanging, although it hasn't been done in decades.

So it wouldn't be impossible to drop lethal injection.

Arizona, Wyoming, and Missouri still have gas chambers.
Wyoming will only use it if Lethal Injection is found unconstitutional.
Arizona gives the choice to anyone sentenced prior to 11/15/1992. Anyone sentenced after that can only go by Injection.
Missouri uses both, but the law is unclear as to which party makes that decision.

Virginia gives the inmate the choice between injection or electrocution. If the inmate chooses electrocution, the state can't be held liable for cruel and unusual punishment.

Utah outlawed the Firing Squad but kept it as an option for anyone that chose it before it was outlawed.

But yes, other states do have other methods for execution, but they are not the primary method. They are set to be the backup in case of problems like being unable to get the necessary drugs or in the event that Lethal Injection is deemed Unconstitutional.

For instance, if Lethal Injection is found to be unconstitutional, Oklahoma will then revert to Electrocution. If Electrocution is found unconstitutional, they will revert to a Firing Squad.

Authorized Methods by State

I never said it was impossible to drop lethal injection. I simply implied that the switch to it was to fight the argument of cruel and unusual punishment. it takes away the majority of the argument against the death penalty.

[smileyeagle1021]

I've heard objections to this around the idea that it's traumatic to the person who is "forced" to pull the trigger, but I can't see how this is a real impediment. No matter how you slice it, you've always got someone pulling the trigger, throwing the switch, pressing the button, or otherwise making the conscious action to take someone's life.

Firing squad may actually be better in that respect. Even if a computer controls the injection, one person has to insert the IV for the injection to happen. A firing squad, traditionally has been made up of 8 to 10 men, of which only between 2 and 4 will actually be loaded with live ammunition and the rest will be loaded with realistic firing blanks, the guns are assigned randomly and there is enough separation of duties that no one ever knows who fired the shot that actually kills the inmate.

[Amanita]

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.

Where are these places? Remind me never to visit. When I die, my beliefs require that my body be returned to the earth, nothing put in, nothing taken out.

[Ginger Tea]

Off the top of my head I cant remember, but I think Greece or Crete might have been mentioned, but the law might have changed since then.

Honestly I don't even recall how or why I read about it, I think it was a secondary element to a story but I forget what drew me to it originally to double check.