Argumentative Essay: The Legalization Of Organ Donation

Death raises many questions but leaves humankind with few answers. Overall it’s an avoided topic because it reminds us of our own mortality. With the help of modern medicine, the death of a loved one can be the saving grace for another’s life. Ironically those restricted from this life giving ability are those with the least regard for the sanctity of life, murderers. Currently, there is little to no strict policy regarding the donation of prisoners organs, it’s typically dealt with on a case by case basis. As a result of this loosely constructed course of action, those who ultimately pay for its disorganized structure are in fact those most in need of organs. Thus, a more rigid policy needs to be enacted especially in the case of murderers, who are condemned to be executed and as a consequence their organs as well. It’s a fact that convicted murderers have little to no rights when it comes to their bodies, however it’s a shame that the justice system doesn’t utilize this to save parts of

them in order to help others.
According to the Mayo Clinic, the leading nonprofit worldwide medical care, research, and education forerunner just one organ donor can “save or improve up to 50 lives”(Mayo 2013).

While some would argue that the small number of executed prisoners is not worth the legal trouble of forcing them to donate their organs their opposition would respond “That’s a fairly statistical approach that may be appropriate if we weren’t talking about lives. Even if the case were that only a single donor can save a single life it would still be worth it.” Overall this issue is under much scrutiny for the fact that it’s controversial for both the medical staff involved and the legal repercussions for those advocating for this procedure to be enacted. While ethical considerations should obviously be addressed, one must keep in mind the moral state of mind the convicted murderers have themselves. When one holds no regard for life, why put so much emphasis on their body’s state after they

perish.
L D de Castro, professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of the Philippines worked towards the allowance of inmates to donate kidneys in exchange for a stay of execution or commuted sentences. De Castro simply stresses that from a political standpoint, those involved take the path of least resistance when the controversy can jeopardize their careers (de Castro 2003.) A purely neutral stand is in itself a disservice to the value of life when such a proposal exists that could be beneficial to many. Importantly the proposal facilitates a physically functional ability within those receiving the organs whilst the donor giving their organs achieves a mental stabilization or mental fulfillment for this process. De Castro implores that their final act can be a life giving deed which is the ultimate act of redemption. (de Castro 2003.) In the Philippines, de Castro was supported by Bishop Teodoro Bacani, Archbishop of Manilia for this very reason. Bishop Teodoro Bacani believes there is “nothing morally objectionable with a creative idea by which a person makes a donation for a crime committed by an ‘antilife by giving life.”(qtd. in de Castro 2003). At a glance, religion would seemingly be an opponent to organ donation, but that is one of the many myths addressed by the Mayo Clinic. According to the Mayo Clinic, “Organ donation is consistent with the beliefs of most major religions. This includes Roman Catholicism, Islam, most branches of Judaism and most Protestant faiths.”(Mayo 2013). This makes depriving people the right to donate their organs as an offense against their right to religious practice. An individual’s act of self-sacrifice can arguably assist the transition into death, and at the very least make one good deed a surviving memory of an immoral person.
Even prisoners who actively wish to donate their organs are denied this option. In an article in the New York Times in 1986 Jonathan Nobles a convicted murderer requested his organs be donated after his execution and was denied this ability. In the article Nobles was quoted as saying “he was prepared to die for what he had done but wanted to do something positive after bringing so much darkness into the world” (National News Brief; An Organ Donation offer on Death Row is Refused 1986). Here’s a man who has admitted to his wrongs and simply wants the ability to make his peace with a lifesaving deed.
The Texas Department of Criminal Justice has an organ donation policy for inmates that says the state will pay for transportation to a Galveston hospital for the surgery and cover the costs of guarding a prisoner. But Larry Todd, a spokesman for the department, said the policy did not apply to condemned prisoners. ''We don't let death row inmates out -- end of story,'' Mr. Todd said. (qtd. in National News Brief; An Organ Donation offer on Death Row is Refused 1986).
Oddly enough Nobles death row status kept him from qualifying for an organ donation policy that doesn’t encompass those who can give everything from their body. Texas, what’s the point of having an organ donation policy for prisoners at all then? It’s heartbreaking to read story after story of this similar disposition prisoners are put into simple because of a flawed system. Another case of a prison who is not allowed to donate organs is written in the New York Times by Christian Longo, a murderer on death row who personally attests to how he wishes to donate his organs and is being deprived of that right. Longo explains that some of the concerns for inmate’s organs include that their organs can be diseased due to the prevalence of H.I.V. and Hepatitis amongst the prison population. Longo’s reply to that is,
testing can easily determine whether a prisoner’s organs are healthy. These tests would be more reliable than many given to, say, a victim of a car crash who had signed up to be a donor; in the rush to transplant organs after an accident, there is less time for a full risk analysis.(Longo 2011).
It’s important to note that an organ harvested from an incarcerated donor has a higher likelihood of being checked comprehensively before being transplanted, and saving someone’s life. Furthermore, according to Longo part of the apprehension comes from America’s shameful past of using inmates as test subjects in exchange for pay. Leaving a lot of concern for favoritism of medical treatment and care of those inmates who will be organ donors. (Longo 2011). Thus, strict guidelines must be put in place to prevent bias from interfering with the daily care of inmates. Which is only a small price to pay for the number of lives that can be saved. Longo states, “If I donated all of my organs today, I could clear nearly 1 percent of my state’s organ waiting list. I am 37 years old and healthy; throwing my organs away after I am executed is nothing but a waste.”(Longo 2011) Longo’s words entail how much of a gift organ harvesting of an executed person can be. The person convicted is sentenced to death, but his organs don’t necessarily have to be.
Another major issue Longo addressed is the fact that many states including the one he is imprisoned in use a sequence of lethal injections that do not keep the organs intact. Longo’s simple solution is “Ohio and Washington use a larger dose of just one drug, a fast-acting barbiturate that doesn’t destroy organs. If states would switch to a one-drug regimen, inmates’ organs could be saved.”(Longo 2011). It seems that overlooks in policies the federal government has failed to regulate continue to be in the way of a life giving opportunity. While ironically something that is already a procedural norm, inmates taking trips to hospitals is an additional concern for those opposed to prisoners donations of organs. Longo describes that fears of prisoners donating their organs as part of an “elaborate escape scheme” (Longo 2011) therefore endangering all of the general public. Everyday prisoners are taken to hospitals for various reasons ranging from regular medical appointments to chemo treatments. These are already strictly guarded outings that have held up in their reliability. Furthermore, Longo comforts that organs would need to be removed at the prison because of the fact that’s the legally binding place executions must take place (Longo 2011). Overall the security of the medical procedure is something to hold little consequence when it happens to be an already established standard procedure.
There is no perfect solution to any question but the fact is that “every day 18 people die on the waiting list for an organ” (Mayo 2013). Even if a small dent can be made in those lives lost waiting for an organ it is worth it. Especially when it is by a means that doesn’t hurt or jeopardize anyone who wasn’t already set to perish, it is truly a miracle for those in need. Medical professionals are forced to participate in execution which clearly goes against their code to do no harm to patients. When the lines have already been blurred it is impossible to wonder why we don’t already save the functional parts of someone who is being sentenced to die. There must be consideration for the possible future lifetime of their viable organs. In retrospect, the most consequential and devastating regret will be that this failed to be procedurally normative, despite the surplus of potential organs in the past fifty years. It’s astounding that in the land of consumerism, that we waste such a high commodity item.