Organs from death row

April 25, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A news article about an Oregon man on death row made me consider something I never had before: organ donation from those put to death.

Christian Longo wants to donate his organs after he’s executed by lethal injection. The 37-year-old was convicted of killing his wife and three children. He says he’ll drop his appeals if he’s allowed to donate. Interesting bargaining chip, as appeals can last years and be costly.

His request has been rejected, as have the requests of other death row inmates who want to donate organs. In Indiana, Gregory Scott Johnson wanted to donate part of his liver to his sick sister. Johnson believed the Indiana Parole Board violated the Indiana Constitution by denying his request. Gov. Mitch Daniels also denied clemency, saying doctors had recommend the sister try to find a donor through conventional methods and there was no clear medical advantage to receiving Johnson’s liver, according to news accounts. Johnson was executed in May 2005.

There are many arguments against allowing death row inmates to donate organs. The lethal injections could harm or impact the organs. Who would pay for tests on these organs to see if they are usable? Will death row inmates be coerced into donating their organs or more people sentenced to die with the hope of donating the organs? In China, the majority of donated organs come from prisoners.

But, to play devil’s advocate, what if there is no harm from the injections to the organs and they could be used to save people’s lives? In Indiana, there are 35 people awaiting heart transplants, more than 1,200 who need a kidney transplant, and 97 awaiting liver transplants. There are more than 1,400 people in Indiana and more than 110,000 nationwide who are awaiting transplants.

Why shouldn’t someone who freely makes the decision to donate his or her organs be allowed to do so? They aren’t going to need them after death.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Organs From Death Row
    Sure, why not. Only as long as it is OK with the Death Row person. I do not think it would be acceptable to do it afterwards without their consent beforehand.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT