The following is a draft of one part of a proposed three-part article.

This part is being written by James Park,
existential philosopher and medical ethicist.

One other part has been written by Don Moses,
a scientist who has now received a heart transplant:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/DM-DONAT.html

And the third part will be written by a death-row inmate
who has decided to donate his or her organs.
(Such a person has not yet been located,
but all leads will be followed to discover such a person.)

by James Park

     Every year hundreds of innocent people die
because there are not enough donated organs to save their lives.

     Every year hundreds of guilty people die by execution
whose organs are either buried or incinerated
rather than given to people whose lives would be saved by such gifts.

     This need and this waste can be brought together:
We could change our laws and policies to permit
people waiting to be executed because of their crimes
to donate their organs to people who have committed no crimes
and who would like to live many more years
but who will also be 'condemned to death' by the lack of organs.

     I live in Minnesota,
one of the states that does not have the death penalty.
(38 states and the US government do have capital punishment.)
Perhaps the death penalty will be eliminated.
But in the meantime, live-saving organs are being wasted
every time someone is executed.

     This proposal to allow people who are condemned to die
to donate their organs
can and should be separated from the passionate debate pro and con
about capital punishment itself.
If and when capital punishment is abolished everywhere,
this potential means of saving additional lives will also dry up.

     By the time that happens,
people on the verge of execution might have led the way
to an increase in organ donation from the general public
that will more than make up for
the loss of organs from the executed.
If condemned prisoners can make the gift of life,
what are the rest of us waiting for?

    I am an organ donor.
I expect and hope to live for about 35 more years,
but if I die before my projected life-span has been fulfilled,
I want whatever usable organs I have to be donated
to other people who will continue to enjoy their use
possibly for many more years after I am finished with them.
I do not fear that I will receive inferior medical care
because I plan to donate my organs.
On the contrary, it is in the interest of everyone concerned
to keep my organs in top condition
so that they can be donated when I die.
I and my Medical Care Decisions Committee (MCDC)
will not donate my organs
until my life as a person has clearly come to an end.

    I do not believe that allowing people on death row
to donate their organs would have any impact
on the willingness of the general public to donate.
But I would like to see some public-opinion research on this subject:
If people on death row were permitted to donate their organs
when they are executed, would this increase or decrease
the number of organs donated by others?

    The first person on death row who donates organs
will become a world-wide celebrity.
Will that news coverage increase or decrease
the willingness of other people to donate their organs?

    If and when a donation from a condemned man or woman happens,
organ-donation agencies will immediately know
whether there are more donors signing up or fewer.

    If organ donation were to become associated
with condemned murderers exclusively,
then others might not want to be in the same class with them
and would therefore decide not to donate their own organs.
This could be so counter-productive that if it were a real effect,
then we should not change the rules about
allowing condemned persons to donate their organs.

    In order to avoid this possible negative impact on organ donation,
I suggest that we encourage only truly voluntary donations
from people who are condemned to death.
It should be their free choice, not coerced or rewarded in any way.

    A simple safe-guard to make sure that condemned persons
are making completely voluntary donations of ther organs
would be to have a 12-month waiting period,
during which the donor would have to re-affirm the desire to donate
at least once per month in writing to an outside, independent agency,
which has all necessary powers to check to see
if the decision to donate is completely voluntary.

    Because prisoners on death row are obviously constrained,
we need to be as certain as possible
that their decisions to donate their organs after death
is a completely free, voluntary, uncoersed decision,
which they are free to reverse at any time prior to the execution.

SAFEGUARDS

      To prevent mistakes and abuses
of organ donation from the executed,
I propose the following safeguards.
Other safeguards might also be wise to put into place.
The purpose of all such safeguards is to make certain
that transferring organs from the dead body
of someone who has been executed
to the living body
of someone who has the potential for many more years of life
is a wise choice for everyone involved.

     Safeguard #1:  The legal process that leads to execution
must be completely independent
of the medical process that leads to organ-donation.

    Organ donation will not even be considered
until after all appeals of the death sentence have been completed
and there is no chance of a pardon
from the pardon-board or the governor
of the state in which the execution is going to take place.
Only when it is absolutely certain that the death penalty
will be carried out according to law
will the option of organ-donation be considered.

     This safeguard must be put into operation with such clarity
that even the most skeptical opponent of the death penalty
and the most sensational of journalists
will no longer be able to raise doubts
that execution-followed-by-organ-donation
is a wise, legal, moral, and rational course of action.

    Safeguard #2:  Separation of the process of execution
from the process of transplanation.

    Doctors do not want to be executioners.
And executioners are not qualified to be doctors.

    The executioner is a non-doctor appointed by one of the states
who has the duty to carry out the execution of the condemned person
as the result of the operation of law in that state
or the operation of federal law.

    Because of the special circumstances of this execution
---namely that immediately following the execution
organ transplantation will take place---
a new definition of death may have to be enacted by the state:
Permanent unconsciousness achieved by drug injection or
possibly by simple surgery that permanently ends
all the functions of the higher brain
will have to be defined as the death of this individual.

    The executioner's hands perform the execution.
Then death is declared based on the fact
that permanent unconsciousness has been achieved.
The death certificate is completed and signed by a doctor,
showing that this individual died by execution,
not as the result of anything that happened to the body after death.

    After death has been officially declared,
the dead body passes into the possession of the transplant surgeons.

     Once all the safeguards have been fulfilled,
then the execution should be scheduled
in coordination with the organ-transplant teams.
The best candidates to receive the organs
can be identified and prepared to receive the organs
immediately after the execution.

     Because this is a scheduled death rather than an accidental death,
the crisis atmosphere surrounding most organ donations will be absent.
Normally, when an accident victim donates organs,
on one knows that these organs
are going to become available ahead of time.
The transplantation must take place
within a few hours of the death of the donor.
And accidental deaths usually do not take place
at convenient times for the operating rooms and transplant doctors.

     Also, nothing is known about the donor
and the condition of his or her organs
before the accidental death takes place.
Because of the necessary haste
with which most organ donations take place,
mistakes and abuses of the organ-donation system do occur.

     A scheduled organ-donation can be conducted
in a much more organized way:
Recipients for the organs can be selected much more carefully.
Operating rooms and their staffs can be scheduled well in advance.
Transplant doctors can have everything in readiness
to receive each organ that will be donated.

     If the executed person was in good health before death,
then that death can yield continued life for 6 or 7 other people.
And the careful advance planning possible with a scheduled death
can insure that no usable organ will be wasted.
Even the donor might be happy to know that his or her death
will result in saving 6 or 7 other lives.

[reference here to the part of the article written
by the death-row inmate who wishes to donate his or her organs]

   As said before, hundreds of people die every year
waiting for organs that never come:
The need or donated organs always vastly exceeds the supply.
Each viable organ harvested means one additional life saved.

     Thus, one execution can led to extended life
for 6 or 7 people who would otherwise die soon after the condemned.

{James Park's part of the article revised 2-25-2001, 6-2-2001, 6-10-2001, 6-23-2001}

Don Moses presents the perspective of someone waiting for a organ:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/DM-DONAT.html

[The Death Row Person presents the perspective
of somene wishing to donate organs after execution.]

    This draft has been posted on the Internet in the hope
that someone with contact with a death-row condemned man or woman
will come forward to complete the three perspectives needed for this article.

    Comments from anyone else who reads this draft will also be welcome.
Send your thoughts to James Park: e-mail:
PARKx032@TC.UMN.EDU

The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author.
The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.