Why not take organs from still-living death row inmates, such as a single kidney before execution? Because a death row inmate must be physically healthy and mentally competent in order to be executed.
But what if the donation process IS the method of execution? Put him under and remove all of his organs.
There are obvious conflicts of interest that arise if it is made mandatory. Though it may be logistically difficult to retrieve viable organs given current practices, I would suspect say... bone marrow would be retrievable, at minimum.
I don't agree with capital punishment in the first place, or at least not the way America does it. (It's not an effective deterrent; if you killed people for shoplifting, then sure, that would reduce shoplifting, but something like 50 people get executed each year total in America--not enough to deter anyone--and the whole system costs probably in the billions. Casey Anthony got like...a 3 million dollar defence paid for by the state because the prosecution wanted the death penalty--and that's just the first trial; if she had lost there would have been a second death penalty trial).
So...50 executions per year. And we'd need to change how the executions are done, because lethal injection screws up the organs. And maybe half those people will elect to be organ donors, so like 25 organs per year. Except half of those will be unacceptable due to AIDS or similar health issues, so more like 12. You know what? **** it, just buy 12 organs from other countries and save yourself the trouble--way cheaper for the government than the cost of coming up with an alternative to lethal injection.
Disagree.
I would, alternatively, be fine with the logic of "yes, they should, because the death penalty should be abolished, and then they should be given the same rights as all other prisoners." But mostly, I feel like changing the rule about organ donation is way too much trouble for way too little impact.
--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision
Disagree. Most states use lethal injection, which ruins the organs anyway. Further, being left in an institution for as long as death row inmates are makes them susceptible to certain diseases that would make their organs dangerous for potential recipients.
My first thought was "they aren't allowed to be organ donors?" (as many other thought).
Why? I see no reason for that.
I must Agree that they should.
Because it doesn't matter what they donate, as long as it's not their brain then it really shouldn't have any effect on the recipient other than, well, keeping them alive*. And that sounds like the best thing they could do with their lives since they're getting executed for killing someone.
You take a life, you lose your own, you save someone else's. It almost evens out.
Unless you think that a foreign organ can posses you, which sounds stupid as hell to me outside of a movie plot, there's zero reason to against them donating organs. And if you think a kidney has a bigger role in thought process than the brain, you probably show such symptoms to the world (and those symptoms are called "stupidity" by society at large).
*Barring the effects of the execution or the health prior to, of course.
--
"Principally I hate and detest the animal called man, although I heartily love John, Peter, Thomas and so forth" - Jonathan Swift BT with the victory!