Morality on Death Row?
Alice Newman faces, with certainty, the death of one child, yet because of State laws, she may well lose two.
Scott Newman sits on death row in Indiana awaiting execution on 25 May for the role he played in 1985 where an 82 year old neighbour was stomped to death and then her house was set on fire. Scott's sister, Debbi is ill and is soon to be put on a transplant list for a new liver. Scott has offered his liver to his sister yet the lethal injection needed to end his life will damage the liver and State laws prohibit the removal of the liver before execution.
Before his execution in October 7, 1998, Jonathan Nobles fought against the Texas Department of Corrections for the right to donate his organs.
After breaking into an apartment and stabbing and killing two residents, he said that the one last good thing he could do in the world was to give his organs to someone in need.
His request was denied.
I don't agree with capital punishment. I personally find the death penalty abhorrent and medieval in it's concept and I don't think it has a place in the 21st century but it's here whether we like it or not. Yet one has to wonder how it is okay for hundreds of people to die every year due to the shortage of donated organs necessary to save their lives, when there are guilty people being put to death by execution whose organs are being buried or burned when they could be given to these people who desperately need them.
One would think that once a person was on death row and was only days away from ceasing to live, whether they died with all of their organs intact or not would be a moot point. However, in a nation where morality and old-fashioned values are the rule more than the exception, would people accept it?
Common sense dictates that people who have been condemned to death by their illnesses wouldn't really mind where their organs came from if push came to shove. If you were about to die from heart disease and suddenly a heart became available, how would you feel knowing that the organ you receive may come from a serial rapist or a murderer? Would you want to know if the organ that saves your life came from an 'innocent'? If you found out otherwise, would you feel dirty due to the actions of its previous owner?
In cases where death row inmates want to donate their organs, there should be a statute in place where instead of being executed by lethal injection, on the date of their death they are taken to hospital, put under for the removal of organs and then given the lethal injection while still on the operating table and they just never wake up.
Until such a time as capital punishment is abolished, surely this can benefit society until alternatives to live organs can be found.
Posted By: Lint | 01:35 PM | Current Events


Comments
You've been Burn'd by Blogg'd Deb...
Posted by: Brad | May 19, 2005 02:33 PM
That makes sense to me. So probably the government will never allow it.
Posted by: weirsdo | May 19, 2005 07:31 PM
That does seem rather foolish, since he is already sentenced to die for his crimes anyway.
Good post Clublint!
Found you thru Brad the Bada_s blogger burner!
;-)
Like your blog, I'm going to link to you, if that's OK!
Posted by: 3rd Times a Charm ( 3T ) | May 20, 2005 12:14 AM
It amazes me every single day. Our government can be such idiots. I don't understand how they can not let Scott Newman's sister have his liver. In denying her an organ she needs just so they can have the satisfaction of putting a man to death don't the really have the blood of not one but TWO people on their hands? It makes me physically ill.
Found you through Blogexplosion.
Posted by: paintingchef | May 20, 2005 04:33 PM
I'm with you here, but I would go a little further. Why not make donation of organs from those sentenced to die be mandatory. When the time for execution arrives, the method of execution (and it should replace all methods currently used) should simply be anesthesia followed by removal of all transplantable organs. It is a great waste of resources to let all those organs go unused. Why keep the illusion of consent, after all, when the state sentences a person to death it has already decided, without consent, the fate of the body of that person as a whole, why not the parts as well?
Posted by: The Gnat's Trumpet | May 20, 2005 06:49 PM
of course the government doesn't want to do it...like Brad says, it makes too much sense. What a waste.
Posted by: dreama | May 24, 2005 11:23 AM