There is a shortage of organs. Frankly, this is frustrating. Morally, the sister of this inmate's victim is poitentially a murderer as well, as she is supporting withholding treatment from a woman who, we must remember, is innocent, regardless of the actions of her brother.

I sincerely doubt this man will be remembered as a "hero" for his actions, but even if he is, so what? Is it so wrong that a man who has committed heinous actions in the past be allowed SOME measure of redemtion in his final act? Isn't that what the ideas of forgiveness and love essential to Christianity are all about?

In my opinion, there's no acceptable compelling argument to prevent this man, or any other death row inmate, for that matter, from donating healthy organs that they can no longer use once the state executes them. Denying them the right to do so is denying life to individuals who desperately need and deserve it and is morally unacceptable.

But that's just my opinion. Nice post.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Gid. This whole thing makes no sense at all.
Thanks.

I'm hoping someone from the other side replies to this. I'd really like to see an argument in defense of their decision.

I would too.

I am normally pretty good at seeing both sides of a situation, but I'm stumped on this one.

We might be in trouble for finding a devils advocate for this one. Gid. Mason is usually the one I can trust to point out the other arguements but if he is stumped.......

Maybe we should ask ColGene. It's probably Bush's fault somehow or other.

Got one, an argument against using his liver.
The guys going to die anyways, even with the surgery, that just extends the date somewhat. So why not harvest any/all organs while they are getting the liver? Put him under for the surgery and he does wake up again. Dismantled for parts, so to speak. And not just him, let's go apply this to all people that would otherwise be executed. Might as well get some use out of them. And while we're at it, lets do the same with any criminal. Break the law, lose a kidney (or some other organ). Be a good law abiding citizen and have plenty of spare parts, should you need them.
How is that an argument against? I really don't think we as a society want to set the precident that certain people are spare parts for other people.

It isn't execution by means of surgery Danny. He would easily survive removal of a part of his liver just like thousands of others do every year. They just don't want to delay his execution long enough for the donation surgery to take place.

I can't think of a single logical reason for denying the donation. I suspect politics is involved, which always defies logic.

I know it isn't execution, but was saying they could kill him that way and harvest all the organs for use elsewhere. Not that I was suggesting they do that, just trying to come up with a reason against the liver donation. It is a bit out there, I'll admit. And I'll agree, politics are rather illogical, mustn't be many vulcans involved in it

Interesting issue and article NW. It is one that defies logic for sure.

I know there are many issues (supposedly) with allowing death row inmates to donate organs, but this case seems stupid.

Supposedly the chemicals that are used for "the humane" execution of a prisoner can damage organs that might otherwise be used for organ donor purposes. Taking the organs in advance of the execution is a morbid thought, since the state would then have a vested interest in making sure that there were enough death row inmates available to help meet the organ needs of the public.

In this particular case, it seems that somehow the doctors should be able to speed up the operations they may want to perform, but on the other side, it just seems stupid that the state can't allow for a slight delay in the scheduled execution of this inmate.

Again, great article. Quite interesting.

A thought just occurred to me. Since he is an inmate, wouldn't the state be responsible for his medical fees in this procedure? Perhaps there is a financial reason for their cold-heartedness being hidden behind the scenes.

As far as I'm concerned all organs useable organs should be harvested from people as soon after death as possible. Of course, there are people who are against the use of body parts after death, and they should be free to use Living Wills to make their feelings known, but harvesting should be the rule, instead of the exception.

That being said, what I wonder most in this case is, why would it cause a 90 day stay of execution? The procedure for removing part of a liver does not take 90 days and since the death row inmate does not need to be fully recovered from surgery in order to be executed, why not harvest and execute the same day?

I would be against a general order to harvest only inmates, or only those scheduled for execution as the implications go far into the inhumane.

Organs and even whole cadavers are far too valuable to the future of our species to just fill them full of preservatives and stick them in the ground.

There's nothing wrong with our current system. If a person wants to be an organ donor it's indicated on their drivers license or they carry a card. The wholesale violation of people's religious beliefs should not be the rule. If it is unknown whether a person is a donor, the organs should not be "harvested" as this demeans people and reduces them to crops. Being an organ donor should be a voluntary thing, not mandatory unless otherwise stated. We're talking about human beings, not vegetables.

Supposedly the chemicals that are used for "the humane" execution of a prisoner can damage organs that might otherwise be used for organ donor purposes. Taking the organs in advance of the execution is a morbid thought, since the state would then have a vested interest in making sure that there were enough death row inmates available to help meet the organ needs of the public.

This isn't about harvesting whole organs. This is about him wanting to save his sister's life with "part" of his liver.

{I'm at work so I'll keep this answer short and come back later when I have more time.}