VOLUNTARY
EXECUTION
FOLLOWED BY ORGAN DONATION
SYNOPSIS:
Voluntary execution could replace all forms of
capital punishment.
Instead of putting people to death against their will
for the crimes they have committed,
we can sentence them to life imprisonment
with the option of voluntary execution after at least one year in
prison.
Murderers who admit their crimes should be offered
the additional means of making amends of donating their organs after
execution,
so that a few people who will otherwise die for lack of organs
will be given a new lease on life.
OUTLINE:
1. VOLUNTARY EXECUTION.
2. SAFEGUARDS TO MAKE SURE THE CHOICE OF DEATH IS REALLY VOLUNTARY.
A. Clear and Consistent
Confession of the Crimes.
B. Clear and Consistent Wish to End
One's Life by Means of Voluntary Execution.
C. Ten Other Safeguards Used
for Ordinary Life-Ending Decisions.
3. ORGAN DONATION WILL TAKE PLACE AFTER EXECUTION AND
CERTIFIED DEATH.
4. A NEW DEFINITION OF DEATH MIGHT BE NEEDED: PERMANENT UNCONSCIOUSNESS.
5. PROCEDURES FOR HARVESTING ORGANS AFTER
VOLUNTARY EXECUTION.
6. SEVEN LIVES CAN BE SAVED BY ONE VOLUNTARY EXECUTION
FOLLOWED BY ORGAN
DONATION.
VOLUNTARY
EXECUTION
FOLLOWED BY ORGAN DONATION
by James Park
The death-penalty is older than civilization.
Even before the beginning of recorded history,
we have evidence of human beings killing other human beings
who belonged to their own group or tribe.
Some of these executions were probably for crimes such as murder.
During historic times, we have actual records
of people who were put to death for their evil behavior.
Each civilization defines certain crimes as so terrible
that the perpetrators of such crimes deserve to die.
But in modern times, there has been a distinct turn
away
from "capital punishment", as the penalty of death is sometimes called.
Much has been made of mistakes
and distortions
of the criminal-justice systems of the planet Earth
which have resulted in people being executed
who should have been allowed to live.
But future civilizations could replace the death-penalty with voluntary execution.
Might it be possible to create a system of voluntary execution
that would be so fool-proof
that even some of the people
who previously opposed capital punishment would embrace it?
1. VOLUNTARY EXECUTION.
When Socrates was found guilty of corrupting the
youth of Athens,
he was offered two options: exile or voluntary execution.
He could live the rest of his life away from his homeland.
Or he could drink the hemlock and die.
He chose to drink the hemlock.
As far as we can discover from Plato's account of
the death of Socrates,
there was no coercion to force hemlock down Socrates' throat.
He freely accepted the execution offered to him,
even tho he did not agree that he had been corrupting the youth of
Athens.
In the future, voluntary execution should only be
available
to people who really have committed capital crimes
—and
who freely confess their crimes.
Should we extend the option of voluntary execution
to all prisoners who
would otherwise spend the rest of their lives in
jail?
For example, after conviction and sentencing,
imprisoned terrorists could be permitted to choose voluntary execution.
They could spend the rest of their natural lives in prison
or they could end their lives after at least a year of imprisonment
by choosing the option of voluntary execution.
Voluntary execution could be exercised at any time
in the prisoner's life.
Some prisoners would probably decide to live for several years in prison
and then to end their lives by means of voluntary execution
when they were nearing the natural end of their lives.
Under any system of voluntary execution,
the prisoner should
decide the date of execution.
2. SAFEGUARDS TO MAKE SURE
THE CHOICE OF DEATH IS REALLY
VOLUNTARY.
We should create safeguards for voluntary execution
to make certain that the choice of death is truly free.
Some opponents of all forms of execution
will insist that no prisoner
is really able to make a free choice to
die.
All we can do in response is to ask them to create workable safeguards
that they would find satisfactory to prove
that the prisoner is making a
completely free choice
—no
manipulation, no coercion,
& no defect of thinking that might lead to a premature death.
Another way to look at this possible problem with
voluntary execution
is to ask how we can prevent prisoners from committing suicide.
Irrational suicide is probably a very common impulse
among prisoners
with long sentences.
How can we prevent suicidal prisoners from using 'voluntary execution'
as a way of committing irrational suicide?
With good safeguards to
prevent irrational suicide,
this possible misuse of voluntary execution
should not be an insurmountable barrier.
When the prisoner requests voluntary execution,
he or she will explain the reasons for this choice,
which should help the authorities who will carry out any voluntary
execution
to know whether or not this is a rational, free decision to die.
A. Clear and Consistent
Confession of the Crimes.
Our modern criminal-justice system is aware
that sometimes people confess to crimes they did not, in fact, commit.
Therefore, it is necessary to present evidence of the crime
that goes beyond the confession of the person charged.
The confession might have been manipulated or coerced in some way.
Sometime people confess to protect loved ones who really did the crime.
And sometimes these confessions were unnecessary
because the loved one under suspicion did not really commit the crime
either.
False confessions must be ruled out
before any criminal conviction is handed down.
And even during the term of imprisonment,
the system should be open to the discovery of false confessions.
Murderers are asked to reveal facts about their
crimes
that only someone who was actually present could have known.
Physical evidence left at the scene can often be linked to the person
who did the crime.
When both the evidence and the confession point in
the same direction,
then we should feel confident about going ahead with voluntary execution
if that is the punishment chosen by the confessed criminal.
Sometimes people charged with crimes confess—and
later recant their
confessions.
The psychology of such situations can sometimes be quite complicated.
For this reason, the confession must be clear and consistent.
This means that over a period of several months,
the person convinced of the crime continues to confess
that he or she really did
the crime for which he or she was justly
convicted.
B. Clear and Consistent Wish to End
One's Life by Means of Voluntary Execution.
Once a prisoner has settled into life in prison,
he or she can consider the option of voluntary execution
at any date at least one year after sentence.
The prisoner chooses the date of execution at least one year in
advance.
The chosen date of execution can be
any time during the expected term of imprisonment
—up
to and including during the final illness of the prisoner.
A simple and sensible way to make sure that the
prisoner
really wants to choose voluntary execution
is to have him or her write a letter by hand each month for at least 12
months
that admits to the crimes and re-affirms the desire to die by voluntary
execution.
Each expression of guilt and the desire for
voluntary execution
must be a fresh re-statements of the facts of the crime
and the decision to choose voluntary execution.
Merely copying previous statements would not be satisfactory proof
that the prisoner is making a new decision this month.
Each month the prisoner must freely
admit the crime in whatever detail would be appropriate
and choose voluntary execution as the final punishment.
These freely-written letters should be sent to
someone
who is completely neutral
on all issues related to this case.
This should not be a
public official or anyone associated with the
criminal-justice system.
Judges and wardens can usually be trusted,
but they should not
be used because of even the least doubt
concerning their involvement in voluntary execution.
One fail-safe method of making sure these are free
expressions of the prisoner
is to have him or her send similar or identical letters
to three
or more trusted persons outside the system each month.
These persons should remain available to testify that they did indeed
receive the letters
on the dates indicated in the letters and the postmarks on the
envelopes.
Copies of such letters requesting voluntary execution
might also be sent to outside organizations opposed to capital
punishment.
And these organizations could have the power to try to change the mind
of the prisoner,
convincing him or her that dying is not the best option.
If someone can think if better ways of documenting
the prisoner's consistent wish to die by means of voluntary execution,
let all such suggestions be implemented if they are
workable.
For example, video-taped statements might be more
convincing than hand-written letters.
Or the prisoner could be allowed to make recorded telephone statements
indicating his or her continuing desire to die by means of voluntary
execution
for crimes that he or she really did commit.
If there is any reason to doubt the prisoner's
decision-making capacity,
then a professional in some relevant field of psychology
could be called upon to evaluate the state-of-mind of the prisoner,
confirming both that the prisoner really did the crime
and that the prisoner is able to make a wise decision for voluntary
execution.
C. Ten Other Safeguards
Used
for Ordinary Life-Ending Decisions.
A related cyber-sermon discusses 10 additional
safeguards
that might be applied to make sure that every voluntary execution
is really a free and uncoerced decision by the confessed murderer:
"Voluntary
Execution: Better than Capital Punishment?".
Here these additional safeguards will simply be
named and linked.
The other cyber-sermon (linked above)
explains further how each applies to voluntary execution:
C. REQUESTS
FOR
DEATH FROM THE
PATIENT
D. THE PATIENT
IS
MENTALLY CAPABLE OF MAKING A LIFE-ENDING DECISION
I.
UNBEARABLE
PSYCHOLOGICAL SUFFERING
K.
INFORMED
CONSENT FROM THE PATIENT
L.
REQUESTS
FOR
DEATH
FROM THE PROXIES
O.
STATEMENTS
FROM FAMILY
MEMBERS
AFFIRMING OR QUESTIONING CHOOSING DEATH
P.
A MEMBER
OF THE
CLERGY
APPROVES OR QUESTIONS CHOOSING DEATH
S.
STATEMENTS FROM
ADVOCATES FOR
DISADVANTAGED GROUPS
IF INVITED BY
THE PATIENT AND/OR THE PROXIES
U. WAITING
PERIODS
BEFORE DEATH IS PERMITTED
V.
OPPORTUNITIES
FOR THE PATIENT TO RESCIND ANY LIFE-ENDING DECISIONS
3. ORGAN DONATION WILL TAKE
PLACE
AFTER EXECUTION AND
CERTIFIED DEATH.
Medical experiments involving living prisoners has
long been an honored practice.
But this must be sharply separated from organ donation from the dead.
Some paired organs such as kidneys,
regenerating organs such parts of the liver,
& regenerating fluids such as blood and blood products
can be donated without harm to the donor.
But when we are talking about donating a heart or
lungs
—or
any other vital organs—
we know that there is no possibility that the donor could live without
those organs.
Therefore, we do not harvest such organs from people who are still
alive.
Any such harvesting from living donors would cause their deaths.
In the case of voluntary execution,
the prisoner who has repeated agreed to being executed
can also (separately) agree to donate his or her reusable organs
after death.
The voluntary execution must take place at a
recordable time
and place.
A licensed physician must certify in writing that the prisoner is dead.
Only after death has been certified and recorded
should the prisoner's body pass into the hands of transplant surgeons
who will then proceed to remove the organs that can save other lives.
The time between the determination of death
and the donation of organs
can be mercifully short.
But there must be some separation between death and donation.
Because the date and hour of voluntary execution can
be set months in advance,
the transplant team can be ready to harvest the reusable organs.
And the suffering people who will receive the organs
can also be prepared in adjoining operating rooms.
But these preparations do not eliminate the prisoner's
right to rescind the
choice of voluntary execution
up until the last moment of consciousness.
4. A NEW DEFINITION OF DEATH
MIGHT BE NEEDED:
PERMANENT UNCONSCIOUSNESS.
Some methods of voluntary execution will be more
harmful to the donated organs
than other means of bringing death.
For example, we would not want lethal drugs in donated
organs.
Likewise, electrocution
would probably damage the organs beyond any
further use.
A firing squad could be told just where to aim,
but this would still seem a barbaric means of death,
especially when the prisoner has voluntarily agreed to donate organs
after death.
The best means of voluntary execution would
probably be general
anesthesia.
But the purpose of administering these drugs to cause unconsciousness
would be different from the purpose in all other surgeries:
Here the drugs would be intended to create a sleep so deep
that the prisoner would have no
possibility of ever awakening.
Another doctor besides the anesthesiologist could know the dose of
drugs used
and could certify that the
prisoner is now dead
because of permanent
unconsciousness.
Some neurological tests might be included
to make sure that consciousness could never return.
This new definition of death will require some new
thinking in medical ethics,
but there are other good reasons for allowing at least some people
to choose permanent unconsciousness as their preferred definition of
death.
(Here is a bibliography of books exploring new definitions of death:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/B-DEF-D.html.
This author's preferred definition of death is permanent
unconsciousness,
as explained in his Advance Directive for Medical Care:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/AD-OUT-NET.html
Scroll down to:
Question
19:
Which definition of death
should apply to you? 152
A.
Brain-Death.
153
B. Coma or Permanent
Unconsciousness.
154
C. Persistent Vegetative
State.
155)
Surgeons are very familiar with operating on
unconscious bodies.
This has been the general practice of surgery for well over a century.
(Before then, surgeons had to be assisted by several strong men,
who would hold the patient down while the surgeon cut as quickly as
possible.
And the most talented surgeons were those
who could complete their cutting and sewing within a few short minutes.
And, of course, many patients died from the trauma of the surgery
itself.)
Nowadays, anesthesia can keep the patient in such a
deep sleep
that he or she will never
feel a thing,
no matter how extensive the surgery must be.
If a neurologist can certify that the prisoner
has been rendered unconscious to such a deep degree
that it would be impossible
for consciousness ever to return to this
body,
then the law could allow this physician to declare the prisoner dead.
This determination of death would be independent
of whatever might happen to the body after death.
The warden of the prison will have fulfilled his or her function
of overseeing the execution:
The prisoner is completely
and
irrevocably dead.
5. PROCEDURES FOR HARVESTING
ORGANS AFTER
VOLUNTARY EXECUTION.
If there are any laws requiring executions to
take place inside prisons,
these laws could be changed for the purpose of allowing organ donation.
The prisoner is asked one last time if he or she
wishes to rescind
the decision for voluntary execution followed by organ donation.
If the prisoner is still willing to go forward with these plans,
the prisoner can be put under constant
sedation
so that he or she will never have another thought or feeling.
The prisoner can then be transported to the medical center
where the organs will be
harvested after the voluntary execution.
In order to assure a tasteful transition from life
to death
and in order not to traumatize the surgeons and nurses
who must care for the prisoner' body before voluntary execution,
it would probably be wisest for the prisoner to be kept under constant
sedation
beginning while still in prison.
Then the transplant center would only receive a comatose body,
similar to the many bodies they already deal with
who were victims of tragic accidents.
These mangled bodies are keep under sedation
in order to prevent even a moment of suffering.
And some of them have
already
been declared brain-dead.
Likewise, the prisoner who has chosen voluntary
execution
will never be awake
in the presence of the transplant team.
And so, he or she will never have been known at the medical center
as anything other than a body—never
known as a living
person.
There will be some medical personnel
who will not want to be part of any voluntary execution.
And, of course, they will be allowed to absent themselves
from any part of the care of the comatose prisoner.
Only those nurses and doctors who voluntarily agree to participate
will be part of any of the
procedures.
These will be the ones who see the great benefits to the living
from allowing organ donation even from confessed criminals
who have freely chosen voluntary execution as their way to meet death.
Another possible similarity between voluntary
execution
and other pathways towards death is the practice of terminal sedation.
It is now possible to keep a dying patient completely unconscious
until death occurs by natural means.
The medical knowledge learned from the practice of terminal sedation
might be applied to the situation of voluntary execution.
A step beyond terminal sedation is the
creation of permanent
unconsciousness.
Once it becomes absolutely certain that this brain
will never have another moment of consciousness,
will never have another thought or feeling—or
even a dream-like experience—
then that prisoner can be declared dead on the basis of permanent
unconsciousness.
And the planned organ-donation can proceed.
(In order to prevent the crime-fiction scenario
of voluntary execution being used as a ruse to escape,
some representatives of the prison staff might have to be present
to make sure that the unconscious prisoner is not rescued by others
before the prisoner has been rendered permanently and irrevocably
unconscious,
that is, before the official moment of execution has taken place.
Once death has been determined and certified by an independent doctor,
the time and date of death will be recorded and the prison guards can
leave.)
In order to identify the best recipients for the organs
to be donated,
there will probably be a period of perhaps a few days
in which the body of the executed prisoner
will be evaluated in the transplant center.
This might be similar to the evaluation of the bodies of brain-dead
patients.
Now that the patient (or prisoner) has officially been declared dead,
which of the patients waiting for transplantable organs
will make best use of these organs newly available?
Here is the final scene for this scenario of
voluntary execution followed by organ donation.
The steps must proceed in this order:
(1) The final drugs are administered to the prisoner who has chosen
voluntary execution.
(2) Permanent unconsciousness has been certified.
(3) Death has been declared on the basis of permanent unconsciousness.
(4) The time and place of execution have been recorded.
(5) Then the transplants from the dead donor can proceed as scheduled.
6. SEVEN LIVES CAN BE SAVED BY
ONE VOLUNTARY EXECUTION
FOLLOWED BY ORGAN
DONATION.
When talking with the potential donor,
no physical or financial benefits to the prisoner will be offered.
The donations after voluntary execution cannot benefit the prisoner.
But he or she can offer life-saving benefits
to patients who will otherwise die.
The voluntary execution of the prisoner can finally lead to something
good.
The donor will no longer be alive to know personally
those who will benefit from his or her anatomical gifts.
But he or she can know in advance
that voluntary execution followed by
organ donation
can be the greatest gift he or she ever offered to anyone else.
How many prisoners will take advantage of this offer
to redeem themselves by giving up their lives?
Who else ever has the possibility of saving up to seven lives
with one
self-sacrificing decision?
AUTHOR:
James Park is an independent existential philosopher,
living and writing in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Much more about him will be discovered on his website called
An Existential
Philosopher's Museum,
which now has over 1,000 rooms.
See a closely-related cyber-sermon:
"Voluntary
Execution: Better than Capital Punishment?".
Created
5-29-2009; Revised 6-4-2009; 6-6-2009; 6-11-2009; 9-3-2009; 9-10-2009;
9-14-2009
Go to other
cyber-sermons by James Park,
organized into 9 subject-areas.