Death Row Inmate Execution Delayed: Organ Donation

[Tennesseer]

Governor John Kasich delays Ronald Phillips' execution to see if killer can donate organs

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Gov. John Kasich on Wednesday announced he has postponed Ronald Phillips' execution date until next summer in order to investigate whether the convicted killer’s organs can be donated to family members.

The governor's decision came one day before the 40-year-old Summit County man was scheduled to be put to death under a newly approved lethal-injection drug cocktail.

Phillips, sentenced to death in 1993 for raping and killing the 3-year-old daughter of his girlfriend, sought the delay in order to see whether he would be a viable organ donor to his mother, who has kidney disease, and his sister, who has a heart condition, according to the Associated Press.

Phillips is also willing to donate organs to other people if he couldn't help his relatives, his attorney, Lisa Lagos, told the AP. Lagos said the request wasn't a delaying tactic but an attempt by Phillips to make a final gesture for good.

If a transplant of any non-vital organs is feasible, Phillips would undergo an operation at Ohio State University Medical Center before returning to death row, the governor’s office said in a release. His execution has been rescheduled for July 2, 2014 at Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville.

More:  Governor John Kasich delays Ronald Phillips' execution to see if killer can donate organs

I am not sure how I feel about this.  I am all for organ donation.  A viable donated organ is a viable donated organ.  There is a shortage of donated organs. 

But is it wise to allow death row inmates to have their execution delayed so that they can donate non-vital organs to others?  Should death row inmates, whose executions are imminent (and all appeals exhausted), be able to donate to relatives first or should the donated non-vital organ(s) go to who ever is on the top of the most critically needed list first?

What is your opinion about completing the execution while the patient is still under the anesthesia from the donation surgery?   (That makes me very, very uncomfortable.)

There very few ways death row inmates con contribute back to society for the harm they have caused.  Contributing non-vital organs would be one of the very few ways (if only way) to make amends to society.

[justme]

From what I understand, the delay is more that there's no precedent for it and in the article I read an organ donation organization said that this whole thing is murky ethical waters of whether the deathrow inmates agree to it un-coerced or not. They alluded to people being more apt to sentence to death to get the organs (though I'm not sure I buy that). It also seems that the lethal injection cocktail would prevent the organs from being viable so the execution would most likely fall under cruel and unusual - either a killing method involving the head or making the doctors execute the person as they take out vital organs.

[greeniis10]

I, too, support organ donation.

No, death row inmates shouldn't be able to specify to whom the organs are given.  Let them be used in order of priority.

Seems to me that organs are always in demand so I don't see a need for executions to be delayed simply due to that reason (unless I'm misunderstanding that part of it).

I'm also not clear on: are they killed first and then organs harvested?  Or, are they put under anesthesia, organs are harvested, and then they are killed??  That way seems a bit odd to me, but is that so that more organs are harvested and usable?

I think it IS a good way for convicts to pay some back to society, but if I know people the way I think I do if they KNOW the organs are coming from a convict they would probably reject them.  Sad.  Hope I'm wrong there.

I will be interested to read all the others' viewpoints, as usual. 

[kittensaver]

This is fraught with really interesting dilemmas of all kinds - it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I agree that inmates should not be allowed to donate to specific persons - they should donate to the national waiting list like everyone else. Otherwise, what's to stop anyone from committing a crime or committing suicide to donate to a specific person?

Also - to donate without damaging the organs - drugs intended to kill the person pretty much have to be "off the table" (sorry for the pun). On a practical level, this means the surgeon pretty much becomes the executioner. Let's see what the medical/ethical community does with that one!

[spartan7886]

Nov 14, 2013 14:47:13 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

I agree that inmates should not be allowed to donate to specific persons - they should donate to the national waiting list like everyone else. 

For his mother's kidney, since that's a non-vital organ, everyone else does get the ability to donate to a specific person. One of the guys I work with is on the list, and while he's waiting for now, if his health starts to decline further, his wife will donate via a swap to get him a kidney.

[Tennesseer]

For some reason (I don't know why), I am under the impression the surgery to donate non-vital organs would take place and the death row inmate would be allowed to recover. Once full recovery was reached (as determined by doctors), the inmate would then be executed.

I have not read anything how the surgery and then execution would work.  Besides reviewing the ethicality of such action(s), I would imagine up for discussion would be the various steps needed to be taken from the donation surgery to the execution.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I agree with what justzombie and kitten said.  This is an area where there are a lot of ethical concerns.  I know most people would write it off because "they're criminals they don't deserve ethics" but that ignores the concerns for those recieving the organs. 

There is always the risk doctors take it upon themselves to harvest organs because this person was going to die anyhow and no proper screening is done ahead of time.  It's very difficult to prove prisoners gave informed consent and make sure everything was disclosed before the organ was taken.   A big black market could spring up. 

There is also the concern about the drugs being used during lethal injection more than likely that would render anything harvested non-viable.  It'd be very hard to ethically set-up a controlled study.  You'd be putting patients at severe risk because some would need to recieve contaminated organs so the results can be studied.  Nobody in their right mind would approve the study.

[Tennesseer]

Nov 14, 2013 14:58:24 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

I agree with what justzombie and kitten said.  This is an area where there are a lot of ethical concerns.  I know most people would write it off because "they're criminals they don't deserve ethics" but that ignores the concerns for those recieving the organs. 

There is always the risk doctors take it upon themselves to harvest organs because this person was going to die anyhow and no proper screening is done ahead of time.  It's very difficult to prove prisoners gave informed consent and make sure everything was disclosed before the organ was taken.   A big black market could spring up. 

There is also the concern about the drugs being used during lethal injection more than likely that would render anything harvested non-viable.  It'd be very hard to ethically set-up a controlled study.  You'd be putting patients at severe risk because some would need to recieve contaminated organs so the results can be studied.  Nobody in their right mind would approve the study.

But because the governor (and others I guess) are talking about non-vital organs as opposed to vital organs (heart, lungs,), I am thinking the surgery would take place before the execution. Once healed from the surgery, the inmate is then executed.

I don't think any type of vital or non-vital organ donation surgery would take place once the execution was over. That most of all (to me) would really cross the line.  Too ghoulish and very unethical. 

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Well you can't really take a vital organ out ahead of time.
 
A non-viable organ taken ahead of time would be safe drug wise but like I said you run into ethical concerns of doctors helping themselves because "this guy is gonna die anyhow and who cares" and nobody is sure that organ has been properly screened.

They can set up ethical guidelines to try to prevent the above situation, but they'd have to be extremely stringent just as ethical guidelines are for doing research with prisoners.  They'd be so strict you're not going to get many organ donors off death row out of the deal.  

So I can understand why they are putting his execution on hold there are serious ethical concerns that need to be addressed.  Just going ahead with his wishes can open up a can of worms.

Ignoring them also ignores the possibility of more donors, which there is always a need for.

Tricky and dangerous grounds for whoever is having to make this decision.

[greeniis10]

Oooooh, kay.  I read too quickly and missed the NON-vital organ part.  In that case, I suppose it should be allowed given the prisoner has a clean bill of health and the organ is a match.  In addition to the ethical part, there is also the monetary part: what will this additional medical procedure cost the prison systems and who would pay for it?  Yes, organs are needed, so I think further investigation is needed to determine if performing these additional procedures can be handled financially.

Hmmm... I have lots of other thoughts on this topic.  I need to think on this more.

[justme]

What non-vital organs are there that donations are needed for besides kidneys?

It also seems rather silly to wait for the inmate to heal from surgery before they kill them. That would take weeks if not months depending on the definition of fully healed, no?

[Virgil Showlion]

I'd give the condemned man the right to donate to recipients of his choice. His circumstances are unique in that he's surely going to die. I see no good reason to deny him autonomy in specifying how his body is disposed for productive use.

The pools are a prudent protection in typical donations so that no one individual can capitalize on the death of another. It "removes the pressure" from potential donors and eliminates the risk of suicides, etc. resulting from self-sacrifice. This same concern doesn't apply to men executed by the state.

[Spellbound454]

You can donate kidneys to family members if you want to.

but his heart donation would have to commence whilst he is still alive.... and the operation would kill him.

Doctors aren't executioners.

[Tennesseer]

Nov 14, 2013 16:58:22 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

You can donate kidneys to family members if you want to.

but his heart donation would have to commence whilst he is still alive.... and the operation would kill him.

Doctors aren't executioners.

Patients usually have to be medically declared brain dead before surgeons will remove a heart to be used in a transplant which then results in the death of the patient.  In this specific case, I don't believe this guy's heart could ever be used for a transplant as he isn't brain dead.

[zibazinski]

Time we stop being squeamish about organ donation. If you're not sure, there already is a huge black market for organs already. This needs to stop because I think all dead people who are qualified should have their organs harvested. There are actually still people who won't donate on their DL because they think medical personnel will let them die.  This shouldn't be that only rich people who can pay for organs can get them which is what is happening now.

[workpublic]

put him o sleep, chop his head off, harvest his organs, easy peasy

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 14, 2013 22:01:00 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Time we stop being squeamish about organ donation. If you're not sure, there already is a huge black market for organs already. This needs to stop because I think all dead people who are qualified should have their organs harvested. There are actually still people who won't donate on their DL because they think medical personnel will let them die.  This shouldn't be that only rich people who can pay for organs can get them which is what is happening now.

I could see making it an "opt out" proposition instead of an "opt in" one, but I wouldn't support a state mandate for unconditional harvesting.

[zibazinski]

I'm ok with opt out.

[Angel!]

Nov 14, 2013 15:36:06 GMT -5 justme said:

What non-vital organs are there that donations are needed for besides kidneys?

There is lung (you can donate a quadrant or whatever it is called), liver (just a portion is cutout when donating), and then marrow (which I'm not sure if it qualifies as an organ, but is somewhat invasive when donating).