Inmate wants execution delayed so he can donate liver to sister

[Moooooo]

From CNN:

MICHIGAN CITY, Indiana (AP) -- An inmate condemned to die by injection next week asked the Indiana Parole Board to grant him clemency -- or at least enough time -- to donate his liver to his ailing sister.

"My sister is sick. She needs a liver," Gregory Scott Johnson said during a hearing Monday. "At this point, everything else -- including my own life -- is secondary to trying to help her if I can."

Johnson, 40, was sentenced to death for the 1985 murder of 82-year-old Ruby Hutslar. Authorities said he broke into her house, beat and stomped on her, then set a fire. His execution is scheduled for May 25.

Recipients' survival chances are much better if they receive a whole liver, said Dr. Joseph Tector of the Indiana University School of Medicine. Unlike some other experts, Tector has said the lethal injection of potassium chloride used in Indiana executions would not necessarily render the liver unusable after Johnson's death.

[minionofmidas]

B and C.

[Joe Republic]

Oooh, interesting debate.  He killed one person horribly, but now has the opportunity to save someone else's life.

Obviously they should let them take his liver.  After that his death is kinda guaranteed anyway, lethal injection or not...

[Richard]

A.  B will just turn into a pardon or something.

[7,052,770]

A.  B will just turn into a pardon or something.

is it just me or are most pro-capital punishment people total jerks?

C, obviously, but at the very least let the guy donate his liver and have some good accomplishment in his life.

[phk]

B, but I'm somewhat C.

[Blue Rectangle]

I thought donation of organs from executed criminals was strictly banned.  It's based on a slippery-slope argument: it would be unethical to have a secondary benefit of capital punishment because it would encourage the practice for reasons unrelated to criminal justice.  China, alternatively, has no such ban and makes wide use of organs from condemned criminals.

The only ethical way to proceed would be to allow him to donate part of his liver and let him keep the rest, allowing him to (potentially) live a normal life.  Then you could kill him.

[Joe Republic]

A.  B will just turn into a pardon or something.

It's very difficult to donate your liver to somebody and then enjoy the rest of your life, because it would be very short.

Unless you're worred that they'd try and donate all their organs piece by piece, and reassemble them again outside the penitentiary.

[Blue Rectangle]

A.  B will just turn into a pardon or something.

It's very difficult to donate your liver to somebody and then enjoy the rest of your life, because it would be very short.

Unless you're worred that they'd try and donate all their organs piece by piece, and reassemble them again outside the penitentiary.

No, actually liver transplant is quite simple with only part of the organ.  The two pieces will continue function fairly normally, just as you can function well on a single kidney.  A whole liver is better, but IMO it would be best to do a split-liver transplant rather than cross that ethical line.

[Joe Republic]

I didn't know that.  In fact, wouldn't it just be easier to execute him first, and then give the whole liver away?

[Richard]

I didn't know that.  In fact, wouldn't it just be easier to execute him first, and then give the whole liver away?

Someone's thinking now.  Take him to a hospital where the transplant will be performed, get an abortion doctor to kill him off, and immediately salvage his organs.

[David S]

A.  B will just turn into a pardon or something.

Unless you're worred that they'd try and donate all their organs piece by piece, and reassemble them again outside the penitentiary.

LOL That would certainly be the most unusual escape in history!

I vote for 2 but it must be done soon, not ten years from now.

[John Dibble]

A.  B will just turn into a pardon or something.

Not that a pardon would do him much good - I don't think you can live all that long without a liver.

I'd let him do it, but ask him to donate all his other organs. I've got no problem if criminals on death row want to donate their vital organs - they ain't gonna need'm.

[Erc]

I thought donation of organs from executed criminals was strictly banned.  It's based on a slippery-slope argument: it would be unethical to have a secondary benefit of capital punishment because it would encourage the practice for reasons unrelated to criminal justice.  China, alternatively, has no such ban and makes wide use of organs from condemned criminals.

The only ethical way to proceed would be to allow him to donate part of his liver and let him keep the rest, allowing him to (potentially) live a normal life.  Then you could kill him.

Well, in this case, he wants to donate the organs.  I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that we should rob the corpses of organs without their consent (even if it is a corpse of a murderer).

[Joe Republic]

I didn't know that.  In fact, wouldn't it just be easier to execute him first, and then give the whole liver away?

Someone's thinking now.  Take him to a hospital where the transplant will be performed, get an abortion doctor to kill him off, and immediately salvage his organs.

An abortion doctor?

[MasterJedi]

Let him donate the liver and then kill him!

[Gabu]

I personally can't see anything wrong with letting him donate the liver before he dies.

[Bono]

This si why more than one execution method should be allowed.
They could pick up something that wouldnt damage his liver, like hanging.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I personally can't see anything wrong with letting him donate the liver before he dies.

But if the execution of sentence is delayed so that he can donate, we'd be setting up a slippery slope whereby persons those conviceted of a capital crime would be used as spare parts factories, living only so long as they still had organs to donate.

However in this case, he's donating to a family member, so I say go ahead and let the surgery proceed, and then kill him, but with all possible speed.

[Gabu]

I personally can't see anything wrong with letting him donate the liver before he dies.

But if the execution of sentence is delayed so that he can donate, we'd be setting up a slippery slope whereby persons those conviceted of a capital crime would be used as spare parts factories, living only so long as they still had organs to donate.

Why?  It seems to me that there's a huge difference between letting someone wilfully donate an organ to someone whom that person cares about and forcefully taking the person's organs against his or her will.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How is letting people sell their organs for money any different than letting them sell them for more time to live before being executed?  There are good reasons, both ethical and practical, why selling organs is prohibited.  Except for the medium of exchange (time instead of money) there is no difference.

[Blue Rectangle]

I personally can't see anything wrong with letting him donate the liver before he dies.

But if the execution of sentence is delayed so that he can donate, we'd be setting up a slippery slope whereby persons those conviceted of a capital crime would be used as spare parts factories, living only so long as they still had organs to donate.

Why?  It seems to me that there's a huge difference between letting someone wilfully donate an organ to someone whom that person cares about and forcefully taking the person's organs against his or her will.

There is a danger that such a precedent would encourage other condemned prisoners to offer to donate organs in hopes of gaining clemency.  We would be encouraging a system that coerces people to donate organs by using the threat of death.

[Gabu]

I personally can't see anything wrong with letting him donate the liver before he dies.

But if the execution of sentence is delayed so that he can donate, we'd be setting up a slippery slope whereby persons those conviceted of a capital crime would be used as spare parts factories, living only so long as they still had organs to donate.

Why?  It seems to me that there's a huge difference between letting someone wilfully donate an organ to someone whom that person cares about and forcefully taking the person's organs against his or her will.

There is a danger that such a precedent would encourage other condemned prisoners to offer to donate organs in hopes of gaining clemency.  We would be encouraging a system that coerces people to donate organs by using the threat of death.

I suppose you have a point, although given the number of times you hear it told that there's a shortage of organ donors, that may not be a bad thing.

(kidding)

[Ebowed]

KILL HIM

HE DID A BAD THING

I DONT CARE IF HES SORRY

I DONT CARE IF HE WANTS TO HELP HIS SISTER

HE IS A HORRIBLE PERSON

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

If we are going to execute people, why not force them to donate their organs?  At least then some good could come of it.   Since when is someone's right to his liver greater than his right to life itself?