Saving Life From Death Row
Yesterday's edition of the New York Times included a compelling request by Christian Longo, an Oregon prisoner condemned to death for the murder of his wife and three children, to be allowed to donate his organs at the end of his life.
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.
Longo goes on to describe the enormous need for organ donors in America. He writes that there are over more than 110,000 Americans on organ waiting lists, and explains that the healthy organs from just one donor can save up to eight lives. Why then, would prison authorities deny his request to proceed with his sentence and donate his organs? Though there are no laws in place that proscribe such course of action, Longo identifies logistical, health, and moral concerns that stand as obstacles in the path to his desired outcome, and addresses how each of these concerns might be allayed.
The main explanation is that Oregon and most other states use a sequence of three drugs for lethal injections that damages the organs. But Ohio and Washington use a larger dose of just one drug, a fast-acting barbiturate that doesn’t destroy organs. If states would switch to a one-drug regimen, inmates’ organs could be saved.
Another common concern is that the organs of prisoners may be tainted by infections, H.I.V. or hepatitis. Though the prison population does have a higher prevalence of such diseases than do non-prisoners, thorough testing can easily determine whether a prisoner’s organs are healthy. These tests would be more reliable than many given to, say, a victim of a car crash who had signed up to be a donor; in the rush to transplant organs after an accident, there is less time for a full risk analysis.
There are also fears about security — that, for example, prisoners will volunteer to donate organs as part of an elaborate escape scheme. But prisoners around the country make hospital trips for medical reasons every day. And in any case, executions have to take place on prison grounds, so the organ removal would take place there as well.
[P]risons have a moral reason for their reluctance to allow inmates to donate. America has a shameful history of using prisoners for medical experiments. In Oregon, for example, from 1963 to 1973, many inmates were paid to “volunteer” for research into the effects of radiation on testicular cells. Some ethicists believe that opening the door to voluntary donations would also open the door to abuse. And others argue that prisoners are simply unable to make a truly voluntary consent.
But when a prisoner initiates a request to donate with absolutely no enticements or pressure to do so, and if the inmate receives the same counseling afforded every prospective donor, there is no question in my mind that valid organ-donation consent can be given.
I confess that I find Longo's arguments persuasive, and am convinced that allowing condemned prisoners to donate their organs would represent an ounce of redemption in an otherwise tragic narrative. Prison authorities, on the other hand, maintain that "the interests of the public and condemned inmates are best served by denying the petition."
What say the Ricochetti?
- Comment (16)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Saving Life From Death Row
I have previously commented on another thread how absurd it is to prohibit donations of bone marrow or redundant organs such as kidneys in return for monetary compensation. If you can't freely dispose of your body as you wish, then you are the property of the state, not yourself.
Does the condemned prisoner own his or her own body? I would say yes, unambiguously. The state may, to the extent of its legitimacy, deem the prisoner's life forfeit, but I do not see how it can control disposition of the viscera, except to enforce existing public health statutes.
If the condemned passes the screening tests for organ donors (which are applied to all donors regardless), then it seems to me a pure act of final redemption for somebody facing execution to possibly extend the life of another person by donating their organs.
(As an engineer, I am compelled to observe that the rate of executions in the U.S. is sufficiently small that whichever way this is decided will make a negligible difference in the availability of organs for transplantation.)
Edited on Mar 6, 2011 at 4:25pmDec '10
Re: Saving Life From Death Row
I agree Diane - it would seem to provide a small good to come out of a terrible tragedy. It sounds as though the man is genuinely remorseful, and undoubtedly it would give him a little more peace as he met his end.
Having said all that, this just reaffirms my belief that the State of Oregon will always make the worst possible decision. And by "State" I refer to not only our government bureaucracy but more the voters who have put them - the legislature, governor and most state officers - in place.
Oct '10
Re: Saving Life From Death Row
With respect, his "peace" I can't find reason to be concerned for. Let’s leave redemption to God. This is a cool, calculating, remorseless killer and his bottomless narcissism is at work here. He wants us to participate in desecrating the memory of innocents, children he caused to suffer an agonizing death. Imagine the fear and panic of a child thrown alive, weighted down by rocks tied to them by their father, into frigid waters; shocked by the cold, they gasp for breath until their small lungs violently erupt in a painful explosion. The fact they were his biological children elevates this to a scale of monstrosity even genocide can’t obtain. Granted, relieving the misery of those waiting for transplants outweighs my horror at anything this animal might “gain” from the emotional fraud he’s accomplishing. Given that, the only argument is: do death row inmates really have ‘free’ will? Find a philosopher for that one; I can’t get the killer’s kids out of my mind right now.
Jul '10
Re: Saving Life From Death Row
The Great Adventure!: It sounds as though the man is genuinely remorseful, and undoubtedly it would give him a little more peace as he met his end.
· Mar 6 at 4:30pm
That should have nothing to do with it.
I agree with John Walker.
Another opinion on organs from The Man Himself.
Dec '10
Re: Saving Life From Death Row
HVT and Jimmy - wow. Just... wow. I suppose maybe I cling a little too strongly the the concepts of forgiveness and redemption since I know that I need them myself. What he did was monstrous - I have no argument with that whatsoever. I have a very difficult time reconciling the level of vengefulness that you display with my faith, however.
Guess this is one of those "agree to disagree" points.
Dec '10
Re: Saving Life From Death Row
If his organs are fit for donation, he should be allowed to donate them after his death. However, the tripartite lethal injection protocol destroys the condemned man's organs.
I dealt with this in an article I wrote for National Review in 1995. Nitrogen asphyxiation is a potential alternative method of execution that is completely painless, uses no poisons or toxic materials, and requires no medical or paramedical procedures. And it leaves the executed man's organs fit for transplantation.
Oct '10
Re: Saving Life From Death Row
Vengefulness? I was emotional, but not vengeful. Vengeful is repaying cruelty with cruelty—throwing him into the same cold water, etc. I don’t want the State being cruel any more than I want individuals being cruel . . . I’m just not fully convinced we have an overriding societal interest in letting clever killers pull off emotional fraud. But I’m not waiting for a kidney, nor do I have a loved one who is. I can afford my emotions at the moment. I acknowledge that when emotion is drained away, the sensible thing to do is harvest body parts and let some good come of this. This assumes there’s a way to ensure death row choices are freely made. I don’t think money should enter into this picture, unless perhaps if any funds generated compensate the criminal’s victims or their family members.
Jul '10
Re: Saving Life From Death Row
If the government can end the Life of an Individual, then is it not actually taking ownership of that Life?
If the government can take ownership of a Life, then can it not do what it pleases with it?
Maybe a person condemned to death by the state has no say with what happens to their body and the state can sell their organs on the open market?
Dec '10
Re: Saving Life From Death Row
Jimmy Carter: If the government can end the Life of an Individual, then is it not actually taking ownership of that Life?
If the government can take ownership of a Life, then can it not do what it pleases with it?
Maybe a person condemned to death by the state has no say with what happens to their body and the state can sell their organs on the open market? · Mar 6 at 7:12pm
The State doesn't take ownership of the condemned man. It only aims to deprive him of his ability to continue living.
Note that the Supreme Court requires that Death Row inmates be accorded certain rights as human beings -- including dental floss (which was taken from inmates in one state due to the remote possibility that floss with abrasive could be used to saw through cell bars).
That's one of the signal differences between the State of Oregon and Christian Longo. Longo believed he had total ownership of all of his wife's and kids' human rights, to do with as he pleased.
Jul '10
Re: Saving Life From Death Row
Stuart Creque
The State doesn't take ownership of the condemned man. It only aims to deprive him of his ability to continue living.
Note that the Supreme Court requires that Death Row inmates be accorded certain rights as human beings -- including dental floss (which was taken from inmates in one state due to the remote possibility that floss with abrasive could be used to saw through cell bars).
That's one of the signal differences between the State of Oregon and Christian Longo. Longo believed he had total ownership of all of his wife's and kids' human rights, to do with as he pleased. · Mar 6 at 7:33pm
Eminent Domain of the person?
Well, I think having the power to decide when to deprive a Person of Their ability to Live is pretty much Ownership, in My opinion. You lawyers may say something else.
Re: Saving Life From Death Row
HVTs
With respect, his "peace" I can't find reason to be concerned for. Let’s leave redemption to God. This is a cool, calculating, remorseless killer and his bottomless narcissism is at work here. He wants us to participate in desecrating the memory of innocents, children he caused to suffer an agonizing death. Imagine the fear and panic of a child thrown alive, weighted down by rocks tied to them by their father, into frigid waters; shocked by the cold, they gasp for breath until their small lungs violently erupt in a painful explosion....
The possible redemption in the situation has nothing to do with the man's soul (as you say, that's for God to decide). I guess I just see it as a way to ascribe some redemptive value to the deaths of the innocents. If the story ends with Longo's execution, the death toll as a result of his actions is five casualties. But if the state allows him to donate his organs, eight other human beings would be granted the gift of life. It seems like a better outcome to me.
Re: Saving Life From Death Row
Prisoners should be given a choice of how they are killed. Traditionally there is more dignity to a firing squad then other methods. I'd sign up for that one given the choice, and my organs would be good to go.
Dec '10
Re: Saving Life From Death Row
Joe Escalante: Prisoners should be given a choice of how they are killed. Traditionally there is more dignity to a firing squad then other methods. I'd sign up for that one given the choice, and my organs would be good to go.
Mar 6 at 9:51pm
It makes the heart a little untransplantable, since the firing squad's target is the heart.
May '10
Re: Saving Life From Death Row
We can either:
1.) Kill Longo and his organs, in which case, at most, 2 people needing kidneys, a few needing livers, a 1 needing a heart will have to wait longer or will die.
2.) Kill Longo and preserve his organs, in which case, at most, 2 people needing kidneys, a few needing livers, and 1 needing a heat will get them and prolong their lives.
I don't understand what the problem is.
Dec '10
Re: Saving Life From Death Row
Of course, Oregon could change its method of execution to "organ harvesting," in which the condemned man goes into the surgical suite, is rendered unconscious and then brain-dead, and has his transplantable organs removed one by one (heart and lungs last).
We might get a much more efficiently operating system of capital punishment if society had a direct interest in accelerating the system's output.
Dec '10
Re: Saving Life From Death Row
Years ago I read a science fiction story set sometime in the future. It may have been written by Larry Niven. I cannot verify this at the moment. In a preface to the story it was noted that movement to end capital punishment was preceded by the discovery of how to type blood. It was further noted that the latter doomed the former. The main character was a man accused of a capital offence. The method of execution was removal of organs for transplant. The action in the story revolves around the man’s escape and recapture. Only in the last line do we learn that his crime was: “Jaywalking, third offence”.