Christian Longo, a prisoner on death row convicted for the murders of his wife and children, argues for the right to donate his organs after his execution by lethal injection:
“I spend 22 hours a day locked in a 6 foot by 8 foot box on Oregon’s death row. There is no way to atone for my crimes, but I believe that a profound benefit to society can come from my circumstances. I have asked to end my remaining appeals, and then donate my organs after my execution to those who need them. But my request has been rejected by the prison authorities.”
While I oppose the death penalty in general, I just want to briefly address in particular this issue of organ donation by executed prisoners.
Prisoners condemned to undergo judicial execution exist in a fundamentally coercive context. By definition, they are not free to make their own choices. Consequently, as a public policy matter, they ought not be allowed to give consent to organ removal after execution. Such consent could not be valid.
However, even assuming valid consent were possible, Longo’s suggested policy has the potential for abuse. For example, the People’s Republic of China has laws requiring consent prior to the harvesting of executed prisoners’ organs, but it is widely known that such consent is often not secured and the practice has led to a global market trafficking human organs (see, e.g., reports by Human Rights Watch).
While the length of waiting lists for organ transplants is problematic, taking organs from executed prisoners is not the answer.
Very interesting. But should the possibly of exploitation negate exploring for a middle ground. Or there is just no money for a program that might benefit others?? Or it is the domino effect of prisoners rights that would be influenced. Just think prison officials and NY R senate: a new mini-agency to monitor this, it’s like inventing little businesses within the prison industrial complex that will in turn make money supporting itself. These ideas aren’t great… I know.
But the point about conditions for prisoners is valid. Is it acceptable that a life sentence serving serial killer receive tax payer supplied privileges like a personal trainer while writing her cook book, while others are denied a therapist for lack of funds? The deeper question the author asks is how fair is it benefit$ be given to someone with little to no ability to appreciate their circumstance or crime (and to that end, rehabilitate) when the money could be used for therapy those who actually could improve.
It has been often discussed that it is almost pointless to try to punish people with antisocial personality disorder because they will not learn from it and it is impossible to rehabilitate. (…) This is where the idea of the warehouse to put psychopaths and others that are unable to be rehabilitated would come in handy. By doing this you separate people who are obviously mentally disturbed from prisoners who can function as completely normal citizens after rehabilitation. This would allow different standards to be set for different groups. VIA
Separating criminals based on level of mental illness and possibility of improvement (like we do with the level of heinousness of the crime/risk of the offender- min vs max)… assuming rehabilitation and thoughtful appropriation of funding is our prison system’s goal. I know the Senate Republicans of NY would love a new permanent money making facility. Thoughts?
A few Goldman Sachs people we’re going to meet with us tomorrow re: if it’s a good idea throwing money investing in the pharma co. handling Naltrexone/Vivitrol now that the FDA has cleared it for both tx’s - right after I spent all night doing the research for said meeting. The point is they paid the cancellation fee, so they are welcome back anytime. But it is speculated to be a very important drug. My prediction: look for the implant soon.
“Naltrexone is a long-acting, opioid-antagonist that blocks heroin effects. It is used to prevent relapse of both opioid and alcohol dependence. The most prominent adverse effects were general symptoms of fatigue and pain at the injection site.”
VIVITROL targets the limbic region by blocking opioid receptors, which may prevent excessive dopamine release
- Alcohol stimulates the release of β-endorphins that bind to µ-opioid receptors, thereby releasing excessive dopamine in the limbic system
- Excessive dopamine is associated with the pleasurable, reinforcing, and rewarding effects of alcohol
- The action of VIVITROL—which blocks the binding of β-endorphins to µ-opioid receptors—may prevent excessive dopamine release
- The mechanism by which VIVITROL exerts its effects in alcohol dependent patients is not entirely understood