THIS particular blog post, by NBC News, is simply a
collection of multiple opinions of this event.
Governor John Kasich believes that Phillips'
intentions were genuine, as he would be providing another with the
ability to live. Some believe that simply, every organ helps. Sally
Satel, a psychiatrist from the American Enterprise Institution claims
that a donation policy would be human, for those desperately waiting
for organs and for those prisoners desperately waiting to make
ammends.
However, more often people did not agree with those,
such as Governor John Kasich. Many ethicists believe that there is no
life for life equation and see the situation as “ethically
troubling.” Cases may arise where allowing condemned prisoners to
donate internal organs may create an incentive to execute more
prisoners. Which, in result, would lead to human rights violations as
taking organs from these condemned prisoners is not an appropriate
way to to expand the availability of organs for future transplant
patients.
One of the most common oppositions of death-row
organ donations is the process of harvesting the organs. After death,
the organs are only viable after a specific amount of time. Arthur
Caplan, a professor of medical ethics at NYU explained, “The only
option for executing someone to obtain vital organs is to either
shoot them in the head or chop their head off and have a team of
doctors ready to step in immediately.” He claims that, in order to
harvest the organs, the method of execution could, theoretically,
undergo from the use of anesthesia. A problem arises when finding a
doctor willing to become the executioner.
Ultimately, the state denied Phillips' request and
his execution was rescheduled for July 2, 2014. Instead, the state
gave Phillips' family the decision to whether the organs will be
harvested once his body is turned over to them. Although, the state
of the organs may no longer be viable at that point.
I found it quite interesting to come across a blog post that had a multitude of opinions -- especially arguments coming from both sides. Being able to see opinions from a variety of people in one area made it much more simple to collect my own thoughts on the matter. With great advances in technology, and being given these opportunities to address controversial topics, isn't it refreshing to be able to make up your own mind without having to be convinced by fancy persuasion, but simply your own thoughts? So, what do you think about death-row organ donations?
I found it quite interesting to come across a blog post that had a multitude of opinions -- especially arguments coming from both sides. Being able to see opinions from a variety of people in one area made it much more simple to collect my own thoughts on the matter. With great advances in technology, and being given these opportunities to address controversial topics, isn't it refreshing to be able to make up your own mind without having to be convinced by fancy persuasion, but simply your own thoughts? So, what do you think about death-row organ donations?
Initially, I had a hard time grasping the idea of how someone could be against saving another life. Why waste perfectly good organs? If a life is being lost why not save a couple lives? But then I can also see the whole idea of taking inmate’s organ’s turn into business-like system. For this particular case I feel as though the individual should be allowed to make a positive impact on his relatives. As for him, I feel like he’s receiving the ultimate punishment so what is wrong with him making some sort of positive contribution to the world he won’t longer be a part of.
ReplyDelete-David Palma
In my opinion, inmates on death Rowe should be given the option to donate their organs after being fully educated on the processes by which they would need to be executed in order to properly harvest their organs. It shouldn’t matter whether or not others find it ethical to execute a person in this way if the inmate is fully aware of the modified execution process required to make organ donation possible. Regardless of what they choose they are going to die so we ought to take the opportunity to help one life in need. I find it ridiculous to assume that jurors might sentence a person to the death penalty on the slight chance that they choose to donate their organs because he few amount of organs that might be obtained from death penalty inmates would barely even come close to making a dent on the list of people waiting for organs. Debating the bioethics of using organ harvesting as a method of killing reminds me of the Pro –life vs. Pro Choice argument surrounding abortion because its also a debate involving taking lives and what makes it humane or inhumane. There are in fact doctors willing to take the life of an unborn child for the benefit (physical, financial or social) of pregnant women so there will probably be some doctors out there willing to kill an already death bound inmate for the benefit of several in need people.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bioethics.org.au/Resources/Resource%20Topics/Abortion.html
The link above skims the surface of bioethics surrounding abortion, why women might choose to get an abortion, and whether or not their choices are really their choices free from external influence.
-Brianna Lee Group 3 Context
In my opinion, I do believe that an inmate should be allowed the option to donate their organs to someone in need. Although the way the inmate would die would need to be changed for the fact the injection would ruin the organs, I believe if an inmate is aware of this and agrees to it, then it is his or her choice. Find doctors willing to operate on a living body who will do the job then even better. I do not understand the negative to impact that allowing inmates to donate organs will bring. Only positives can occur from this and it could potentially save many lives. However it is a tricky subject, I am in favor of allowing inmates to decide whether or not they donate their organs.
ReplyDeleteWhen we look at why or why not we should allow death row inmates to donate organs, we should be able to put aside non-circumstantial reasoning, such as the provided case that it will lead down the path of a slippery slope. If we go down that road, we can also apply the point that regulations will hinder the liberties of not only those that are imprisoned, but those that are not. I am not opposed to the idea of the death penalty, for those who rightly deserve it, and I am definitely not opposed to organ donations, yet we need to allow for this to be judged individually, and not applied universally to all prisoners. The organs that will be contributed will indeed help save lives, and those that they are being taken from were both voluntary, and in order to be terminated in the first place. We should not be opposed to life for those who deserve it, and death for those who do.
ReplyDeleteThis article about death-row organ donations is very interesting. Just as David said, why wouldn’t the state want to allow other lives to be saved? But on the other hand, I see how this could spark many problems. Many citizens would probably see this as unethical. Many doctors would also say this wouldn’t even work due the complicated process of saving these organs right after the criminal’s death. In addition, finding a surgeon that would agree to operate in this condition would be a long and controversial process by itself. In the end though, Phillips’ is essentially going to die in the end so why not put his organs to good use? Prisoners should be able to decide what they would like to do with their organs. This way not everybody put on death sentence is forced to be a part of an “organ business.” It is up to their own individual decision and beliefs.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to saving a life by giving up your own, I believe it should be complexly honored. Yes the man did commit a horrible crime but he is now trying to save a life. The fact that it is a family member not just a random person and they match up well, his requested should be honored. In the article it says it is possible to do this but it there are only three ways. A bullet to his head, decapitation or anesthesia, all these ways aren't exactly ethical but if it helps him save a life I don't understand why he would not be allowed to donate the organs. The U.S. is clearly low on organ donors or else they would have a match for his family, so why not follow through with it.
ReplyDeletehttp://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=116967
This website speaks about the lack of organ donation and how prisoner donations is not a bad idea.
Death row inmates should definitely be allowed to donate organs, should they choose to do so. The argument that this would lead to judges handing out more death sentences is a mere misconception. Ultimately, the choice is up to the inmate as to whether they wish to donate organs, not the judges', so it is just not true that the judges will assign significantly more death sentences, since it is not guaranteed that the organs will be donated anyways. The judges would continue to hand out life sentences based on the crime committed, not because they wish to have an extra kidney available to someone else. Additionally, the people who state that organs are somehow tainted because they belong to a murderer fail to acknowledge that crimes are the result of behavioral and psychological issues, and ultimately it is the mind that controls the person's actions, not their muscles or other organs. Thus, so long as the organs are healthy, they will work just as well as any other donor's organs in a recipient's body. So if viable means to extract organs can be conducted, organ donation should most certainly be allowed for inmates.
ReplyDeleteMany people see prisoners as the extra baggage of society, so when a prisoner attempts to make amends by donating organs and potentially saving lives is met with controversy, it does somewhat confuse me. Claims that death sentencing would be more frequent should this be in play are ludicrous, as the process for death sentencing is far too long for it to make any impact. The prisoners have every right to make amends for what they've committed. As long as they give consent to the proceedings and are properly informed on what will occur to them, they should be allowed to go through. Regardless of whether they deserve death or not, they are attempting to save another's.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Taylor, I also find it extremely interesting how this situation has so many different viewpoints and arguments defending both sides. While I see both sides, I believe that inmates should have the choice of donating vital organs in order to possibly save another’s life. If the inmates are aware of how it would be done and are still okay with it, I believe that it is a perfect opportunity to save someone else’s life. Even if the procedure is unsuccessful, it’s still worth it to try if it provides any chance of allowing another person to live. It doesn’t make sense to me to deny someone who is going to be killed anyway, the right to donate their organs to someone who needs them. I think it would be extremely useful considering there is a waiting list for people who are in need of organs. I personally feel that only positive things can come from allowing inmates the decision to donate their organs to a person who may die without them. While I believe that the idea of allowing inmates to donate organs would be beneficial in many ways, this article focuses on the fact that allowing death-row organ donations is a terrible idea and should not be allowed.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nbcnews.com/id/42669327/ns/health-health_care/t/organs-inmates-idea-should-be-doa/#.Ut9UxpEQF1M
I found this to be the most interesting topic i have read lately and it has really got me thinking. Although he is going to die either way, he wants to help others. I think that he should definitely be able to donate his organs if he wants to and if his family wants to allow it. Why would anyone say no to saving someones life? Phillips has healthy organs that could really help his mother and sister and i like to see that he is doing it for the right reasons. Even though he messed up with his life, he is still trying to do something good to leave behind. In this editorial titled "Death Row Inmates Should be Allowed to Donate Organs", it talks about the exact story of Ronald Phillips and how now he is set to be executed in July with a new two-drug method of lethal injection that may or may not damage his vital organs. If the organs dont get damaged in the procedure then they can be used.
ReplyDeletehttp://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2013/11/death_row_inmates_should_be_al.html
I don't really see how this is even an argument. By denying someone the ability to save another's life, why would you not allow that. Isn't not allowing someone to be saved basically murder? I mean he was already going to die anyways from death row. Why not use perfectly good organs to save the lives of innocent people. Anyone even prisoners should have the right to what happens to their body after death. Why deny him the ability to do one last thing to make things right as he is about to die. As for whether death row is right or not, that is a completely different topic on its own. For now though, as long as death row exists, people should have the right to donate organs.
ReplyDeleteMy standpoint on this article is that I do not understand why they cannot harvest the organs before July 2nd of this year. But at the same time I think that what got him into jail is absolutely disgusting and I do not blame the judge for not granting the requests of a man that rapes and murders toddlers.
ReplyDeleteOne of the biggest hurdles of his request is that no doctor would be willing to do this violation of ethics by removing the vital organs such as a heart from someone who is still alive. He is requesting something that is an uncharted and unknown territory for doctors in Ohio. This request will follow with many repercussions of human rights and the incentive to execute prisoners for their organs.
Why does this man, who has been convicted since 1993, suddenly have an epiphany that he should donate his organs. And conveniently, it is right before his execution he waits to plea, which in turn halts the process of his death sentence. This man seems to only be concerned with extending his date, if he was truely concerned about his family he would've brought this to the courts attention earlier. I think this final plea and its repercussions will bring lots of life-for-life debates.
After reading this article, I personally believe that Phillips genuinely cared about helping his mother and sister through his organ donation, rather than exploiting it to delay the execution. It seems like a very reasonable request and I was surprised to see the state reject it. I feel that if Phillips was willing to consent to the described execution in which his vital organs could be preserved, then it should be allowed. Organ donation seems like a commendable option for death-row inmates to pursue. While this doesn't necessarily make up for their previous crimes, it is a way for them to attempt to make amends before their execution. I do not understand the heavy criticism that this request has received, and I feel that only positive results could come of it. Here is an article which talks about another death-row inmate who made a similar request two years ago, and mentions his support of Phillips's request.
ReplyDeletehttp://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/15/21473572-one-death-row-inmate-supporting-another-in-organ-donation-fight?lite