Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
I am now torn.
@Mattprince: the problem is that the organs aren`t any good after regular execution and by removing them while the donor is under anesthesia would effectively kill him/her. M.D.s would then be the executioners which is in opposition to their oaths.
I personally think it`s a great idea and considering some doctors already participate in lethal injections (to the chagrin of many colleagues) and many support euthanasia, it shouldn`t be too difficult to find willing workers, especially given the possible benefits.
How so? The doctor doesn`t have any control over whether the perp gets killed or not - he just`s harvest the organs from the dead body after the execution. The re-use of the dead mans organs is a no-brainer - and doesn`t conflict with the Doctor`s oath.
Now if you were to harvest them from live perps... ones that hadn`t been convicted yet.. But ones that you KNEW were guilty, that`s OK isn`t it? Besides, you don`t need a Doctor, or Anasthetic, just a very sharp knife ;)
Seriously. Who cares if it was the heart of a serial killer? It`s a heart. A wasted heart at that.
But I think this is a great idea if the inmate consents to it. :DD
This place will become like China.Let`s clone some organs instead.
Doctors are already prohibited from carrying out executions for the very reason you mentioned, the Hippocratic oath. That`s why prison staff are trained to do it instead.
Harvesting organs from death-row inmates is a great idea, but it will never happen because there`d be too much opposition from all over the place. New drugs, surgeries and medical devices could be tested on them too, but there again you`d have the same sort of outcry against it. Instead of the PETA nutjobs screaming about animal testing it would be Amnesty International going crazy about it. Too bad.
On the topic: it is a good idea unless those organs are already in a bad shape, which is quite possible with all the drugs, smoking and drinking common for most inmates. But if they`re okay and might actually help someone, I really don`t see a problem here. The Hippocratic Oath is not exactly "Do no harm" in it`s modern form, but even if it was, benefits to people saved outweigh the harm done to a person that was going to die anyway.
BUT they are procured ASAP for maximum viability, aren`t they? I fell off a cliff and was clinically brain dead (shut up Davy!). When I woke I had both my kidneys still, which according to your argument was a damn lucky thing.
eventually the inmate will die of natural causes and give up their organs anyway. better than just wasting them and a life.
i think that if you are killing someone, you are just as guilty. 2 wrongs dont make a right.
AS for the moral dilemma of receivng an organ from a convicted murderer--cadaveric organ donations are anonymous. And if you-- or your parent or sibling or child--were sitting at Death`s door waiting for a new heart, I don`t think you`d be too picky about where it came from.
An organ donor must be clinically brain dead before organs can be procured. That means there is no electrical activity in the brain whatsoever and the patient`s body is being kept viable only by machines. In other words, the potential donor is all ready dead--they are not being "killed" by having their organs removed. So there goes the whole "violation of Hippocratic oath" theory. If the inmate consents then where`s the problem? If they are going to be put to death anyway then why not have some good come of it? How do you think organs are acquired from the general population? By consent, of course! A person organs are not removed from a body without some type of permission (organ donor card, living will, surviving family members), despite what you may have read in the National Inqui
Consent is easy to get, all it takes is a little coercion or poverty. That`s no guarantee that the person saying yes is competent to say so, or fully understands what they`re agreeing to. That`s why we have laws against euthanasia.
Seriously, where do you draw the line once you think this is morally ok?"
Consent. It`s stealing if they don`t want to donate and they harvest from them anyway.
It is rumored that in China, the state is doing a brisk business selling organs from executed prisoners, and you don`t have to do much to get yourself executed over there. Also, it`s believed that they don`t actually execute them first. They take them to hospitals, anesthetize them, and remove most of their organs while they`re still alive. They die on the table while removing the heart and lungs. I really don`t think we want to go there, do we?
On the other hand, if we`re going to have the death penalty anyway, and a prisoner wants to donate his organs voluntarily (perhaps to buy himself a cooler spot in hell) I guess that`s okay.
Yep, great idea. While we`re at it lets also harvest them from gays, the disabled, the terminally-ill, the homeless and third-world healthy people.
Seriously, where do you draw the line once you think this is morally ok?
That`s quite funny that they swab them though, you wouldn`t want them catching an infection before they die!
Lethal injections are issued by a machine, the only human portion of it is putting an IV into the arm of the person being executed. (Hilariously they often swab the person`s arm with alcohol as they`re trained to do, which is entirely unnecessary given the circumstances) You don`t need much training to do that. Blood drives for instance; there are people with very basic training there to draw your blood. As for the Hippocratic oath, it`s only for Doctors, lesser medical professionals do not have to swear by it.
We could always remedy this by training people to simply remove organs, but I can`t imagine there are enough executions going on to make that worth it. [/quote]
Someone is presumably trained to administer the lethal injection. That requires medical experience, yet clearly they would be breaking the Hippocratic Oath. So there`s people being trained in some degree of medical knowledge, who are not doctors. They already perform the executions, this would just be a slightly higher level of training.
Well, all cannibalism argument aside, with all the tattoo inks and drugs in the body, do you really wanna eat that?
Bravo. That is exactly why this will never happen. The death penalty will be abolished before criminals donate organs.
Depends if you count death and pain as two different things though... "
The Hippocratic oath is "Do no Harm", killing someone classifies as harm.
We could always remedy this by training people to simply remove organs, but I can`t imagine there are enough executions going on to make that worth it.
Except the criminals are under anaesthetic, so they won`t be hurt at all.
Depends if you count death and pain as two different things though...
"yeah, thats it, give me a heart that belonged to a serial killer and child rapist........ i would rather die naturally thank you"
It`s not the heart that killed a person or the liver that raped them, it`s the brain.
Yes, it`s for the greater good, and you could have the recipients right there ready to receive their new organs, but, can a doctor do it? I don`t think so.
It would make a significantly more practical form of execution. You get rid of a baddie, and save a few people.
They should really look into this.
I don`t think that the people are usually told where their donor organ came from. Although there`s probably ways to find out.
Does that mean we should completely write off this option? I`m sure there are some who are able to donate a healthy organ or two. I think it would be a great way to justify capitol punishment... Pay for taking a life by saving one. Makes sense to me.
why HAVEN`T we done this yet?