Topic: Death Penalty To Feed Organ Banks?
started by: Wolfguard
Posted by Wolfguard on Jul. 17 2002,13:59
You can thank FW for posting Mr. Niven's responce for this one.What do you think about funding technology that would let us store organs for long periods of time?
This leads into:
What do you think about using the usable body parts of death row inmates to help people that are in need of organs? Basicly harvest their organs and put them into the above mentioned storage as the means of their execution.
Everyone at least knows someone that knows someone that needs a kidney, heart, whatever. As you get older you may need parts. Here would be a way to keep a supply on hand and a way to keep that supply stocked. Since the only way you get a new part is to have someone else die does it matter if it was a car accident or capital punishment?
(shit, now the damm worms are everywhere!
Posted by DRUFER on Jul. 17 2002,14:33
I like the idea, I think that more states will adopt the death penatly if a use like this comes out of it.
Posted by Nikita on Jul. 17 2002,15:17
(waking up...)sounds like a good idea, but there's the danger of higher/wanton levels of death penalty sentencings ...
"we need a (name the organ!
, your honor!""yea, and (name the inmate/perp)'s (name the orgain again!
is a good match for the next person on the transplant list""Death penalty!"
though advances in tissue engineering should (hopefully) get to the level where you can grow your own organs ...
Posted by DRUFER on Jul. 17 2002,15:37
I thought that it would be the other way around:"We need a (name the organ) your honor!"
"Yeah, and (name the inmate who is already on death row)'s(name the organ) is a perfect match!
And yes, tissue engeneering, and growing organs for transplant would make somthing like this unnecessarry.
Posted by Necromancer on Jul. 17 2002,16:47
well bob you're appeal is in 10 weeks time but seeing as this guy needs a heart now they've decided to bump forward your sentancing to next tuesday. sorry old chap lifes a bitch aint it.10 weeks later: aww drat THERE'S that missing piece of evidence we've been needing to prove your innocence.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 17 2002,16:53
| Quote (DRUFER @ 17 July 2002,07:37) |
| And yes, tissue engeneering, and growing organs for transplant would make somthing like this unnecessarry. |
Except that this deals very closely with cloning, with Dubya and the "religious right" would love nothing more than to make completely illegal in all forms. Lift the blanket ban on cloning research, and by time we are all old enough to need transplants, we can just have a new heart grown that would be exactly like our current one, but healthy. Sorry, I'm just a little pissed that no one seems to undertand how much cloning research will help improve life.
Posted by DRUFER on Jul. 17 2002,17:28
I totally agree with you Demonk, we should be doing this research. I don't mean cloing a person to harvenst their organs, but if my heart or somthing goes kaput one day it would be a hell of a lot eaiser to just grow me a new heart, instead of putting me on life support, and putting me on some damn waiting list for a heart, and then going thru the trouble of finding me a good match.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 17 2002,19:26
an easy way to cure the problem of replacement organ shortages is to give you the right to sell your organs. as it is now, you can't. either they rot in your body when you die or you give them away for free. since there is no incentive to give them away, a lot of people rather keep them when the die. if you were able to sell them for $x000 dollars though, everyone and their mother would be selling their organs. poof, no more shortage.
Posted by DRUFER on Jul. 17 2002,19:51
sure. But can you garuntee a perfect match that will get there in time to save the person?
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 17 2002,21:38
that's a moot point they don't do that now either
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 17 2002,22:08
Like many other SF ideas, this will come into being.(goes to send link to Niven)
Posted by redpanic on Jul. 18 2002,01:36
| Quote (Wolfguard @ 17 July 2002,07:59) |
| ... What do you think about funding technology that would let us store organs for long periods of time? This leads into: What do you think about using the usable body parts of death row inmates to help people that are in need of organs? Basicly harvest their organs and put them into the above mentioned storage as the means of their execution. ...Since the only way you get a new part is to have someone else die does it matter if it was a car accident or capital punishment? |
If I'm not mistaken - they've been doing this in China for some time now. (ie: inmates for parts...read it somewhere)
I don't see anything ethically wrong with it - provided spare parts don't become some sort of commodity.
The PC thing to say nowadays is that organ donation is great, and everyone is all for it when it comes to voicing their opinion. However, if this were the case, and all those who say they would, DID in fact donate their organs - would there still be a shortage?
What I'm getting at is that if we don't use inmates, we're stuck in a stale environment where people talk out of both sides of their mouths - and nothing gets accomplished.
Posted by stray_kitten on Jul. 18 2002,07:31
| Quote |
| The PC thing to say nowadays is that organ donation is great, and everyone is all for it when it comes to voicing their opinion. However, if this were the case, and all those who say they would, DID in fact donate their organs - would there still be a shortage? |
Well, as pointed out earlier, a lot of organ transplants occur due to the death of a donor (it's kinda hard to donate a heart and still live). So, even if EVERYONE who said they supported donating organs did donate, you still have to wait for someone to die. Plus, I'm sure the need for organs was rapidly growing...even before donating was "PC". So, I'd say that there probably would still be a shortage.
| Quote |
| What I'm getting at is that if we don't use inmates, we're stuck in a stale environment where people talk out of both sides of their mouths - and nothing gets accomplished. |
I disagree. How many fewer hearts/kidneys/livers would we need if people took better care of themselves? Granted, I know there are lots of cases where people need organs due to disease, genetics, whatever...but there are other cases where people have just trashed their bodies (okay, maybe less of a case for hearts since those people usually die of heart attacks). Obesity has led to increased cases of diabetes, and who knows how many people have just drowned their livers with alcohol? I'm not saying that it would completely solve the problem, but it would probably help if people tried to prevent some problems instead of expecting medicine to fix it (please note, I am NOT referring to those who need an organ due to disease, genetics, and other things that can't be helped).
There will probably always be a shortage. Due to advances in medicine, people keep expecting to live longer, and with age comes increased medical problems.
If you want to do something about filling transplant needs, go donate blood, platelets, or plasma. It's a start.
Posted by DRUFER on Jul. 18 2002,14:57
| Quote (CatKnight @ 17 July 2002,13:38) |
| that's a moot point they don't do that now either |
Hunh? Then whats the point of people selling off their organs, and stopping the shortage, if there still not going to find a good match....the selling organs isnt going to solve anything.
Posted by Wolfguard on Jul. 18 2002,14:58
| Quote (Necromancer @ 17 July 2002,11:47) |
| well bob you're appeal is in 10 weeks time but seeing as this guy needs a heart now they've decided to bump forward your sentancing to next tuesday. sorry old chap lifes a bitch aint it. 10 weeks later: aww drat THERE'S that missing piece of evidence we've been needing to prove your innocence. |
Worse yet
you get a new crime. Say i have money and find out that i need a new heart. the doc gives me the bad news that i need the heart now but there is not one in the banks. the doc, an old friend of mine, explains that he knows "this guy" that can get organs for a price but it has to be kept quiet. now, since at this point the only people that know are me and the doc i give him a wink and a nod along with a briefcase full of cash.
3 days later a healthy person vanishes someplace in the world and a week later i have a new heart.
Organlegging is born and we have an entire new group of people we can feed to the organ banks.
Posted by redpanic on Jul. 18 2002,15:51
| Quote |
| ... you still have to wait for someone to die. |
A combined effort between using criminals' bodies - those that are worth using, and getting people to commit to doing it, could at the least offer a decrease in the overall need.
Not to mention that at the least, 1/2 of the US population "says" they agree with, and feel people should participate in organ donation. Why do they not participate?
| Quote |
| ..if people took better care of themselves? ....(please note, I am NOT referring to those who need an organ due to disease...). |
This is a solution? How long has the government/news media been harping on America to get "fit" and be "healthy"? Years. Yes, people are more aware (to an extent), but the same problems still exist. Nothing has changed.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 18 2002,16:48
Well, we make it more finacially smart to be out of shape! You can get an extra-extra-extra large milkshake and fry's for only $2.49, but it costs ~$100 worth of cloths, gym fees, time, etc just to burn off the amount of calories that meal puts on! If the government really wants to help get America fit, they should go in and give all the gyms in the country money (much like the airlines) so they can reduce their prices to dirt cheap so your average Joe Sixpack can actually afford to go there and workout in a healthy, supportive environment.Or we could just outlaw McDonals
Posted by stray_kitten on Jul. 18 2002,17:11
[quote=redpanic,18 July 2002,09:51][/quote]| Quote |
| A combined effort between using criminals' bodies - those that are worth using, and getting people to commit to doing it, could at the least offer a decrease in the overall need. |
but there would still be a shortage. You still have to wait for someone to die. And then, in the case of using criminals' organs...there's the whole argument about whether or not the death penalty is right in the first place (but that's an entirely different topic).
| Quote |
| This is a solution? How long has the government/news media been harping on America to get "fit" and be "healthy"? Years. Yes, people are more aware (to an extent), but the same problems still exist. Nothing has changed. |
Nope. Didn't say it was a solution...just one way to help. You're right, nothing has changed despite "awareness." I'm not talking about awareness...I'm talking about change. Like demonk said...it's easier to live an unhealthy lifestyle than a healthy one. CHANGE THAT. Have gym memberships cost less...same with healthier food. REAL change that will help move America toward a healthier lifestyle...not just "awareness campaigns."
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 18 2002,19:40
SK, you are obviously not new to forums; what are your intentions here?(fucking cable modems/floating IPs)
Posted by redpanic on Jul. 18 2002,19:54
| Quote (stray_kitten @ 18 July 2002,11:11) |
| but there would still be a shortage. You still have to wait for someone to die. And then, in the case of using criminals' organs...there's the whole argument about whether or not the death penalty is right in the first place (but that's an entirely different topic). ...I'm talking about change. Like demonk said...it's easier to live an unhealthy lifestyle than a healthy one. CHANGE THAT. Have gym memberships cost less...same with healthier food. REAL change that will help move America toward a healthier lifestyle...not just "awareness campaigns." |
-
the utopia you describe sounds great.and even with this kind of "real change", there would be no guarantee it would work. and if it did, it would take years to figure out if it had been successful. in the mean time, people are still dying. i suppose the question now is "how immediate is our need?".
we have close to 2 million inmates locked up right now for various crimes. upon release, 65.7% end up locked up again for the same, or another crime. (statistics online...)
what good do they serve? if they have nothing to live for, and for no other reason cannot be a productive member of society - we should make them useful.
and yes, the death penalty is the right way to go. we don't enforce it enough - people don't fear the death penalty because it is rarely used.
Posted by stray_kitten on Jul. 18 2002,20:14
FW...I am new to forums. Believe it or not, this is the very first forum I have posted to. I usually prefer to interact with people in person. 
Have I done something to trigger your distrust/suspicion? Broken some "etiquette"? If you (or anyone) has any hints to offer, I'm open to suggestions.
My intentions? Just to have some (mostly) intelligent dialogue with people that have different viewpoints/perspectives. I've been stuck in grad school all year and have been thinking mostly about "school related" stuff. I wanted some "fresh" topics and good discourse. That's all. No hidden agendas. Promise.
Posted by forumwhore on Jul. 18 2002,20:34
Yer whore isn't mad at you at all, the opposite.It is obvious to me you have been to other forums or your IQ is off the scales.
First forum, my ass.
Please continue regular posting, kitten.
You interest me, kitten.
Where else have I met you?
Would you mind if I gave you an avatar?
Already picked one out and stuff...
Posted by Nikita on Jul. 18 2002,20:50
| Quote (forumwhore @ 18 July 2002,15:34) |
| Would you mind if I gave you an avatar? Already picked one out and stuff... |
Dude please don't let it be the one you've used ... you know, the cat with the "my master just gave me an enema - rrrreeowwrr!" face!
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jul. 18 2002,21:41
| Quote (redpanic @ 18 July 2002,11:54) |
| and yes, the death penalty is the right way to go. we don't enforce it enough - people don't fear the death penalty because it is rarely used. |
Hahaha, this is just straight up BS. Rarely used like what? They kill shit tons of people in Texas, Florida, any number of other moronic states, every year.
The death penalty is an archaic Eye For an Eye notion that should have died out w/ the babylonians. Just another one of those things that keep society in the stone age.
Posted by stray_kitten on Jul. 19 2002,03:27
Red Panic, I admit I'm a bit of an idealist. I don't think "make America healthy" is THE answer. I won't even say that it's a large part of the answer. But it sure helps (and I imagine it would help decrease the cost of healthcare as well). Organ transplants are needed. No question about that. Taking them from criminals...different question.
Are you saying you would take them from Death Row inmates...or inmates in general? Your argument seems to imply in general since you mention people being released and then locked up. Are you then saying that you want to increase the number of people we should kill? At what level of crime do we start harvesting organs?
I think the idea of cloning organs has some merit. Granted, I haven't done a lot of research, but I've come across some interesting points such as the fact that a good portion of organ transplants don't survive past the 3rd year...even with anti-rejection drugs. And the anti-rejection drugs have some nasty side effects too. I haven't done enough of my own research to figure exactly what I think about organ cloning, but it seems to be a good answer. The ethics that can become involved with the "what ifs" are a different discussion.
<aside> FW...this really is my first forum. I won't claim the high IQ, though. I'll just take it as a compliment that you think my comments are interesting. Thanks!
As far as the avatar...since I haven't picked one, sure! I'm interested to see what you've picked out.
Posted by redpanic on Jul. 19 2002,03:50
[quote=TheTaxMan,18 July 2002,15:41]Hahaha, this is just straight up BS. Rarely used like what? They kill shit tons of people in Texas, Florida, any number of other moronic states, every year.Shit tons? Hardly. What number would be too many? What number would be just right? How many people does a person have to kill to deserve to die?
Give people something to fear, and maybe there won't be quite as much crime. Even if there is, we limit the prison population. We are too easy on criminals as it is....too many lawyers, too many laws, and far too many appeals.
If they screw up, they pay the price - if that means their life, so be it.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jul. 19 2002,06:55
| Quote |
| Shit tons? Hardly. What number would be too many? What number would be just right? How many people does a person have to kill to deserve to die? Give people something to fear, and maybe there won't be quite as much crime. Even if there is, we limit the prison population. We are too easy on criminals as it is....too many lawyers, too many laws, and far too many appeals. If they screw up, they pay the price - if that means their life, so be it. |
As you completely missed the point.
You said rarely used which is a completely subjective term. I countered with shit tons, hoping you would see your error (apparently not). If you can't infer from my post that zero is the right amount you're beyond all help.
Ruling by fear is also known as coersion and it's something that Hitler and Stalin did well.
By the way, the kill maybe 2 people a month in Texas (depending on who the governer is). < (link) >
That's a lot of people. I don't see how 'we need to execute more people for the death penalty to work properly' is valid argument.
Posted by BlackFlag on Jul. 19 2002,08:58
1. A man's body is his own. 2. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Posted by redpanic on Jul. 19 2002,09:06
| Quote |
| ...You said rarely used which is a completely subjective term. I countered with shit tons, hoping you would see your error (apparently not). If you can't infer from my post that zero is the right amount you're beyond all help Ruling by fear is also known as coersion and it's something that Hitler and Stalin did well. By the way, the kill maybe 2 people a month in Texas (depending on who the governer is). < (link) > That's a lot of people. I don't see how 'we need to execute more people for the death penalty to work properly' is valid argument. |
2 people/month? Ok...24/year. So what? Doesn't sound like a large number...but hey, that's subjective too, right?
Per making a valid argument...
If it isn't used as often as it could be, then people have no reason to fear it. Likewise, if the process of appeals takes quite a long time, they know there is no immediate punishment.
All I'm saying is make the punishment severe, immediate, and without leniency.
Posted by Necromancer on Jul. 19 2002,16:08
this is a silly idea but this IS america we're talking about so it could happen.prisoner A is convicted and sentanced to death for harvesting
prisoner A is then found innocent
persons who were responsible for finding him guilty are then trialed for the murder of an innocent man
we now have prisoners B + C + D....
they get killed and harvested
the appeal finds this was unjust and now persons E+F+G+H+I+J+K+.... are up for the chop
how is this possible?
because someone is gonna gain from all these extra organs perhaps the company getting a subsidy for transpoting the organs mabye. therefore we have somone in power deliberately killing people for organs cos it gets them money.
just thought i'd put forward somethign ridiculous but money or power is involved in everything so there's no reason why there shouldnt be some reason political or personal to deliberately find people guilty so that they can be harvested for organs.
Posted by stray_kitten on Jul. 19 2002,16:21
We already know that the legal system is flawed....it couldhappen... Or, at least, there's a huge potential for abuse.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jul. 19 2002,16:38
Yeah, lets just kill all the fuckers. It's cleaning the gene pool, right? Ruling by fear, right? Nazi Germany, right? The only difference is the target group and what is done to the body afterwards (harvested for organs and not burned). Since you don't think two people/month is enough, I can only assume you want 60,000/day. That sure would clean out the prison system.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 19 2002,16:51
Simple. Don't make it a free market. Let the government run it. They can not accept ANY money into the department. The place is run at a loss. The employees, being federal employees, still get paid no matter what, but no one gets paid more for there being more organs "harvested". You might still have to worry about bribes, but that's a constant everywhere in this world. When it comes to human life, the "market value" of the person shouldn't play a role in determining their fate. This is why I hate the medical system we have in our country:Admitting Nurse: You have insurance?
Bleeding Person: No.
Admitting Nurse: Then sorry, we can't help you. Either goto general, or save yourself the time and just die out in the street.
Or this:
Doctor: There is only one cure for what you have, and it's this brand new MegaCure™ pill. That'll be $39.95 per pill. Take 3 a day for 2 years.
Sick Person: But I don't have that kind of money, and I don't have insurance that will cover it.
Doctor: Well, guess your going to die then. Next!
Not very "humain" of us, now is it.
Posted by kuru on Jul. 19 2002,18:27
Someone brought up the point of 'What about all of these people who say they're all for organ donation, but then their organs rot?'This is obviously a problem. Part of the reason that it's a problem is because there are people like me, who are absolutely in favor of organ donation and have 'ORGAN DONOR' put on their driver's licenses. Those people sometimes have a next of kin who is vehemently opposed to organ donation (like I do).
If I died tomorrow, before harvesting my organs, the national organ bank would have to get the permission of the person who would then legally own my body - my next of kin. Despite my making it absolutely clear that I want my organs to be donated, it wouldn't happen. Because next of kin would veto it.
And no, they can't just go by what I stipulate in a will or some other document. The next of kin always has the final say.
Posted by DRUFER on Jul. 19 2002,19:19
| Quote (kuru @ 19 July 2002,10:27) |
| And no, they can't just go by what I stipulate in a will or some other document. The next of kin always has the final say. |
That sucks. I always thought the will had the final say.
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 19 2002,21:22
I heard a story of an old rich man, who married a younger woman. She wanted kids, but he didn't. He specifically stipualted in his will that his body was to be burned, and that no sperm or DNA sample was to be taken. When he died, his wife claimed he "changed his mind on the deathbed." The doctor removed a small sperm sample from him before cremation, and the woman's egg was fertilized in a petri dish.I think that sucks.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 19 2002,21:51
It just proves that the laws in this country are fucked up. A person's will should never be questioned. You can't make a will unless you are mentally sound, so anything in there should be held as the true intent of the person.
Posted by DRUFER on Jul. 19 2002,21:56
Thats the same garbage thats going on with Ted Williams. His will says that he was to be cremeated, and his son insisted that Williams wanted to be frozen, and his DNA sold some day! Now who in the blue hell woud want to buy Ted Williams' DNA?
Posted by joelthegreat on Jul. 19 2002,22:02
Yes, I'd like a Bigmac with a side of Ted William's DNA, thanks.
Posted by Wolfguard on Jul. 19 2002,22:17
| Quote (kuru @ 19 July 2002,13:27) |
| And no, they can't just go by what I stipulate in a will or some other document. The next of kin always has the final say. |
That is why you get a will/living will that puts a person in charge of your body that is not your kin.
Hell, my wife does not even get a say in the "pull the plug and harvest the bastard!" question when it comes time.
Posted by kuru on Jul. 20 2002,15:39
Talk to a lawyer, Wolf, because the research I've done on living wills indicates that they do not, in Pennsylvania, override the actual wishes of next of kin.The only document that does, in cases of organ donation or removal of life support, is a Durable Power of Attorney.
And with that, you better hope a judge enforces it fast enough that the organs aren't wasted anyway.