Organ Donation from Prisoners - Ethical, or Manipulative of Prisoners?

LiptonCambell: Killer's quest: Allow organ donation after execution
death row inmate Christian Longo seeks redemption, but state says no

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42667886/ns/health-health_care/



An Oregon death row inmate is mounting an aggressive behind-bars campaign to donate his organs after he’s executed, in part to repay society for the gruesome murders of his wife and three young children.

Christian Longo, 37, says he wants to do more to take responsibility for killing his family and dumping their bodies in coastal bays nearly a decade ago than simply accepting execution by lethal injection.

“Why go out and waste your organs when you have the potential to go out and save six to 12 lives?” reasons Longo, whose voice is measured and articulate on the phone from Oregon State Penitentiary cell DRU31 in Salem.

His request to drop his appeals in exchange for being allowed to donate organs has been flatly denied by state corrections officials, who refuse to negotiate with a killer. It’s been denounced in principle as “morally reprehensible” by the nation’s organ donation officials and medical ethicists.


I had not really given much thought to the ethics surrounding the organ donation of prisoners, but it brings up several ethical issues. Despite a desperate need for organs, there are compelling reasons why we may not want to receive donated organs from prisoners, despite their willingness.

What do you guys think? Does donation of organs bring up conflicting issues for those opposed to the death penalty? Are there too many ethical issues that supersede individual demands for organs? Apparently donation by prisoners in the US is not permissible, but should prisoners be able to partially redeem themselves by doing so, or is that even possible?

OCD_OCD: I do not believe that the state has the right to tell a prisoner that he cannot donate his organs. It's one thing to harvest the organs of prisoners sentenced to death like they do in China without permission.

It is ultimately our decision (or those of family members if their choice is unknown) to decide the ultimate disposition of our bodies.

LiptonCambell: Lol well clearly that is the case in Oregon

Outbackjack: He should be allowed to donate his organs.If I was dying I wouldnt care where the organs came from.Beggars can not be choosers.

Serabi: I'm all for organ donation - too many desperately ill people need organs.

I just wonder whether his organs can be used after receiving a massive dose of Potassium chloride. Usually organs are removed from a ventilated donor.

Nicotina2: I oppose the death penalty for many reasons. I'm a registered organ donor.

The only ethics that are in question are those of the U.S. government. If a government is willing to kill a person that government must be willing to face all repocusions.
If a person wishes to donate their organs it is a medical issue.

I would think that lethal injection would render the organs useless for transplant. The state is now forced to face the true brutality of the death penalty as another means of killing must be implemented.

It seems the problem lies with the "negotiation", perhaps this would set a dangerous precident in other areas of law. There is no need to negotiate though. The reality is that Christian Longo has been sentenced to death, it ought to be his decision as to what happens to his body after death. Those sentenced to death by lethal injection recieve a muscle relaxant before the fatal drugs are administered, This is done only for the comfort of those who witness and/or perform any part of the killing of the inmate. The state aims to make the death penalty appear less brutal and in this case if the organs are to be of use then Christian Longo will probably have to be killed by hanging or shot. Whos ethics are in question... the State of Oregon and the U.S.A.

StuckInTheSixties:

This is an interesting topic.

I'm going to go against the flow of opinion here, and agree with the State of Oregon against accepting his organs.

Why? Here's the critical paragraph in the article:

"His request to drop his appeals in exchange for being allowed to donate organs has been flatly denied by state corrections officials, who refuse to negotiate with a killer. It’s been denounced in principle as “morally reprehensible” by the nation’s organ donation officials and medical ethicists.

Like Nicotina, I see that it's a trade-off. Does the donation of his organs merit negotiating with a convicted murderer wending his way through the justice system? I think it's a terrible precident to set.

However, if the inmate was to simply say: "If/when I'm executed for my crimes, I'd like to donate my organs," without any negotiation or requirement of any sort attached to that, I'd have no problem with his organs being used.

(Not that this is relavant, but for the record, I'm opposed to the death penalty, and I have a card attached to my drivers license that allows legally provides for the donation of my organs in the event of my death.)

StuckInTheSixties:

OCD says:
"I do not believe that the state has the right to tell a prisoner that he cannot donate his organs."

Why not? The state denies all sorts of rights and privileges to convicted prisoners (such as, in this case, his very life). Why should the state not be able to deny the prisoner that particular right or privilege?

Nicotina2: What puzzles me is why would the state prohibit Christian Longo from donating his organs to begin with?

From the article in the OP.
Ironically, a survey of organ transplant centers nationwide reveals that while taking organs from executed inmates is prohibited, accepting organs from inmates who die of other causes while in custody is permitted, although rarely and under strict circumstances.

Makes no sense to me at all.

StuckInTheSixties:

That's just it, Nicotina. Given the wording of the article, it's unclear of whether the only reason that the State of Oregon is opposing the inmates desire to donate his organs is because he is stipulating a drop of appeals. It's ironic, of course, that he's trying to speed up the process so he'll be executed and his organs go to some good use, but if I understand the article, the inmate is insisting on linking one thing with the other.

If that is, indeed, the case, it shouldn't be done. It's would be a terrible precident that could lead to other inmates attempting to negotiate other things that way. Not good.

It's a bizarre, ethically twisted case, regardless of anything. That's why I find it very interesting.

Nicotina2: It seems as though the organ donor organizations do not accept any organs from a person who is sentenced to death under any conditions. This makes no sense as the only possible outcome is that people in need of organs might have their lives saved. The state is willing to take a life but not willing to give life. Hypocritical of the state and anyone who supports the death penalty.

StuckInTheSixties:

Yep. Like I said, this is a very bizarre, ethically convoluted situation. But one thing seems clear cut to me: having an inmate - death row or otherwise - negotiating with the state for things that they desire is simply not a good idea.

Something that is in a way similar to this situation (and a common theme in crime shows on TV):

The death row inmate that wants a commutation to life-without-parole in exchange for revealing the details of the crimes, location of bodies, etc. for the comfort of the victim's families and the "closure" they'll get from it.

Nicotina2: Didn't Clifford Olsen demand $ in exchange for information about where some of his victims remains where located?