Death row organ donation

[Supermonkeydude8888]

What an interesting ethical dilemma

"It's unethical because this guy who's being executed raped and killed a 3-year-old. When you donate your organs, there's a kind of redemption," Caplan said. "Punishment and organ donation don't go well together. I don't think the kinds of people we're executing we want to make in any way heroic."

I think Caplan's (the medical ethicist) statement is a little absurd, surely ethics would unerringly lean towards allowing organ donation, which can save another life; assuming that the execution MUST happen (lets not discuss the ethics of death row). What do you think?

[Dr-Worm]

I think the guy's statement is far more than just a little absurd. He's okay with potentially several innocent people dying solely to keep one guilty person from being seen as anything less than 100% evil? What the fuck kind of ethics is that?

[ZeroAsALimit]

here is no ethical dilemma. Many people on death row see their actions as a bit like a game of chess. They have lost, so why keep their pieces?

If it is that much of a bugaboo for him, he could simply TELL the people who are going to receive organs from people on death row their origin. And I'm pretty sure no-one will care.

Also, Gary Gilmore's Eyes.

by The Adverts

[Painbringer]

I don't think a DYING child would care where his new life-saving organs came from.

[supergandhi64]

john 15:13 "greater love has no one than this that someone lay down his life for his friends"

At 11/15/13 05:30 AM, Painbringer wrote: I don't think a DYING child would care where his new life-saving organs came from.

i don't think a dying child would be receiving a kidney from a 40 year old inmate lol

--supergandhi64

[KatMaestro]

Why would anyone care where it came from as long as the organs are good to go?

[Jackho]

I don't think anyone's going to agree with that.

[NewgroundsMike]

At 11/15/13 05:41 AM, supergandhi64 wrote: john 15:13 "greater love has no one than this that someone lay down his life for his friends"

You've just given me the ultimate proof that the bible is crap. It doesn't even make grammatical sense. Hail Satan!

But back on topic. Disregarding my opinion that the death sentence in itself is unethical, using it to save others' lives is the least one can do.

[supergandhi64]

At 11/15/13 11:12 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote:

At 11/15/13 05:41 AM, supergandhi64 wrote: john 15:13 "greater love has no one than this that someone lay down his life for his friends"

You've just given me the ultimate proof that the bible is crap. It doesn't even make grammatical sense. Hail Satan!

But back on topic. Disregarding my opinion that the death sentence in itself is unethical, using it to save others' lives is the least one can do.

what part of john 15:13 doesn't make grammatical sense? sounds to me like you're not very good at grammar but i guess it's too much to ask that someone who sympathizes with communism would be literate lol

--supergandhi64

[i-am-ghey]

his organs may be unusable after the execution and there is no guranatte his actions will help save a life. but there is still a chance his relative will benefit from it.

the inmate should be allowed to donate organs, if he wishes. preventing him from doing so helps no one but deprives the patient a chance of survival.

[Painbringer]

At 11/15/13 11:42 AM, i-am-ghey wrote: the inmate should be allowed to donate organs, if he wishes. preventing him from doing so helps no one but deprives the patient a chance of survival.

In China they take your organs no matter how how much you protest before your execution.

[Profanity]

Anyone who thinks it is morally wrong to allow death row inmates to donate their organs is a complete moron. "Ethical Dilemma" my ass. That guy just likes to sound important.

[HeavenDuff]

At 11/16/13 04:28 PM, Profanity wrote: Anyone who thinks it is morally wrong to allow death row inmates to donate their organs is a complete moron. "Ethical Dilemma" my ass. That guy just likes to sound important.

"They question whether the condemned can freely give consent, or are desperately hoping to win clemency. They worry that such practices would make judges and juries more likely to hand out death sentences. And they are troubled by the notion of using inmates for spare parts."

Yeah, that's completely void of any kind of ethical matters...

[Entice]

At 11/15/13 02:52 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: I think the guy's statement is far more than just a little absurd. He's okay with potentially several innocent people dying solely to keep one guilty person from being seen as anything less than 100% evil? What the fuck kind of ethics is that?

This.

What a fucking idiot

[Profanity]

At 11/16/13 05:23 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: "They question whether the condemned can freely give consent, or are desperately hoping to win clemency. They worry that such practices would make judges and juries more likely to hand out death sentences. And they are troubled by the notion of using inmates for spare parts."
Yeah, that's completely void of any kind of ethical matters...

Was that a lazy attempt at sarcasm? You know every scenario can be broken down into an "ethical dilemma" if you are too eager to scrutinize it.

They should not need the consent of the prisoner. It should be a Doctor's decision to decide whether or not the prisoner's organs are healthy enough for donation or whether they should be given to medical schools and criminal forensic laboratories for study. This is not complicated.

[HeavenDuff]

At 11/16/13 05:35 PM, Profanity wrote: Was that a lazy attempt at sarcasm? You know every scenario can be broken down into an "ethical dilemma" if you are too eager to scrutinize it.

That's because you are too self-centered and idiotic to understand that just because you are close-minded, pig-headed and short-sighted... it doesn't mean that there is nothing there.

They should not need the consent of the prisoner. It should be a Doctor's decision to decide whether or not the prisoner's organs are healthy enough for donation or whether they should be given to medical schools and criminal forensic laboratories for study. This is not complicated.

Yeah well, that's exactly what it means to have an "ethical debate". Get it? It means that there are issues worth taking a while to discuss and think about. You seem to believe that because someone is found guilty of committing a crime they lose all their rights. That's an ethical ideology. Get it?

You are actually debatting ethics when you said there was no ethical matter here.

Hypocrisy much?

[Lemonardo]

[Medical experts] are also deeply disturbed by the prospect of death row inmates donating organs, even if can ease shortages so severe that patients die while on the waiting list.

I just don't.

[Cally]

At 11/16/13 05:23 PM, HeavenDuff wrote:
"They question whether the condemned can freely give consent, or are desperately hoping to win clemency. They worry that such practices would make judges and juries more likely to hand out death sentences. And they are troubled by the notion of using inmates for spare parts."

Yeah, that's completely void of any kind of ethical matters...

Eh, I carry a donor card authorising the use of any organs still intact and usable in the event of my death. I could be a vegetable for a year before finally passing and that donor card is still lawful consent. Ethics smethics, if someone on death row wants to donate their organs on after the event and those organs haven't been rendered useless by the execution drugs, and there's no potential risk to the recipient, then why deny somebody who has been on a transplant list for years a healthy compatible organ if it comes up, regardless of the life of the donor? Pretty sure somebody who has had lifelong kidney disease isn't going to give two shakes of a dog's tail who it came from if they have the chance of a normal life.