Thread: Hell: Kill him first, we need his liver Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000590
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Are you feeling ill? Do you need some new organs? Any vital bits going wrong?

If you answered "yes" to any of these questions your travel plans need to include the People's Republic of China - right now, as a matter of fact.

Why now? Well, let me just tell you that executions are up because of the looming October 1, National Day. And, you see, prisoners about to be terminated with extreme prejudice are well known to offer up their vital bits as a "present to society." Please do remember to bring some cash. Actually, quite a lot of cash.

As we all know, vital bits don't work too well out of the deep freeze. So, you need to get them while they are ahem . . . hot.

The mind boggles at how that kind of trade might play out in the abattoir . . . sorry . . . prison.

"Prisoner Chen needs to be executed now because his liver meets the needs of the paying customer awaiting it in hospital right now. "

"Prisoner Yang needs to be kept alive and healthy as his heart matches that of the man who will be here next month. Do you suppose you could persuade him to do some aerobic exercise in the meantime?"

Never mind the folks on death row (a/k/a the "Meat Counter".) Kinda makes you wonder if a new capital crime in good old China is having the right kidneys, liver, heart, eyes, etc.

Oh well, I guess it means the over 1770 executions per year benefit someone.

[ 23. November 2006, 11:10: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Don't tell the Governor of Texas or they'll want to be in on the profits with their death-row!
 
Posted by KenWritez (# 3238) on :
 
Author Larry Niven already wrote about "organ-legging" and the dangers of using prisoners as "organ farms."

Luckily for me, my med load prohibits my organs being recycled, so no one gets me.

Not that anyone ever gets me anyway.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
Forget about the menudo, liver and onions. What about that writing hand? Surely that is marketable.
 
Posted by KenWritez (# 3238) on :
 
Nope. Potassium levels in my body are toxic to anyone who doesn't have my condition. Thus, no transplants unless the medicos could somehow flush the tissue.

However, I could be ground up for fertilizer or animal feed.
 
Posted by samara (# 9932) on :
 
Mmm, soylent green.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Evil, but is anyone surprised?
 
Posted by KenWritez (# 3238) on :
 
samara, try me as a spread on your favorite cracker. "Mmmmm, that's KenWritez-alicious!"
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
samara, try me as a spread on your favorite cracker. "Mmmmm, that's KenWritez-alicious!"
"May I urge you to consider my liver? It must be very rich and tender by now, I've been force-feeding myself for months."
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
I hope the extended life of every recipient is haunted by an ever increasing sense of unease, futility and despair. I hope their money is returned to them at the pearly gates, as they are slammed in their faces.

P
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I know this is Hell, so reasoned debate is out of fashion, but what exactly are people objecting to here? Is it

- that China uses the death penalty?
- that money is being involved here?
- that prisoners due to be executed are encouraged to donate their organs?
- that we feel squeamish about receiving these organs? (Anybody remember the punk song "Gary Gilmore's Eyes"?)
- that we didn't think of it first?

I'd only feel uneasy about the first two of those reasons. If you're happy with those, I don't see that the rest are valid objections at all.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I know this is Hell, so reasoned debate is out of fashion, but what exactly are people objecting to here? Is it

- that China uses the death penalty?
- that money is being involved here?
- that prisoners due to be executed are encouraged to donate their organs?
- that we feel squeamish about receiving these organs? (Anybody remember the punk song "Gary Gilmore's Eyes"?)
- that we didn't think of it first?

I'd only feel uneasy about the first two of those reasons. If you're happy with those, I don't see that the rest are valid objections at all.
The first and second principally. I can also imagine DNA testing being abused to ensure that suspects with good tissue matches go to the gallows. Who knows, it could get popular elsewhere.

With my appetite for alcohol I'm not sure one of these livers would be a lot of use. [Biased]
 
Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I know this is Hell, so reasoned debate is out of fashion, but what exactly are people objecting to here? Is it

- that China uses the death penalty?
- that money is being involved here?
- that prisoners due to be executed are encouraged to donate their organs?
- that we feel squeamish about receiving these organs? (Anybody remember the punk song "Gary Gilmore's Eyes"?)


- that we didn't think of it first?

I'd only feel uneasy about the first two of those reasons. If you're happy with those, I don't see that the rest are valid objections at all.
The cynicism with which the Chinese Government is recycling political/other prisoners into cash? Combine this with a good DNA database and an unscrupulous secret police, and you could be onto a real winner.

A lot of the West's dealings with China are to some extent hypocritical, this just smells worse than most.

- Chris.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'd only feel uneasy about the first two of those reasons. If you're happy with those, I don't see that the rest are valid objections at all.
Not at all. Even if I approved of the death penalty (which I don't) and even if money wasn't involved, I would still consider there too great a conflict of interest involved in the state handling both executions and organ tranplants from those executed. There is also the matter of informed consent for organ donation - questionable that this can be achieved in prison.
 
Posted by A Lurker (# 3377) on :
 
As it happens, I was discussing this with a friend who's spent a lot of time in China recently. Apparently any increase in the number of executions around national day will be utterly dwarfed by the increase in deaths due to drunk driving around the same time.

I leave it to everyone else to work out whether this makes it more or less moral or desirable to go to China for organ transplants in early October.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I know this is Hell, so reasoned debate is out of fashion, but what exactly are people objecting to here? Is it

- that China uses the death penalty?
- that money is being involved here?
- that prisoners due to be executed are encouraged to donate their organs?
- that we feel squeamish about receiving these organs? (Anybody remember the punk song "Gary Gilmore's Eyes"?)
- that we didn't think of it first?

I'd only feel uneasy about the first two of those reasons. If you're happy with those, I don't see that the rest are valid objections at all.
Hmmm . . .

I am against the death penalty. (Except for hoping that asshole in the high school in Colorado would get shot yesterday.) This is not news, BTW.

That people who kill receive largish sums of money for doing so bothers me. The potential for monetary reward for killing someone is problematic and I think most people here would agree with that. That being said, I don't think the People's Republic is going to give up executions anytime soon. I wonder how it would change things if the money went to the family of the victim, err . . . criminal.

Encouraged to donate their organs. Do you really believe that is what happens? How touchingly naive.

Squeamish? Not really. If someone is going to die (for reasons right, wrong, or indifferent) they might get some satisfaction from knowing that a person in need was going to get better. Sort of a way of making something good come out of something bad. The program would have to be changed to either pay the families, or make the organs free to those who are in need to my way of thinking.

Last I checked though, the People's Republic doesn't give a rat's ass what I think.
 
Posted by KenWritez (# 3238) on :
 
I've pondered this issue for years, ever since Niven raised it in his books. From purely a mercenary perspective, organ-harvesting prisoners is a sweet deal for the state, as long as people are willing to pay more for organs than it cost to process and keep the prisoner.

The amazing thing is not the level of corporate evil the state can commit, but rather this practice hasn't become more popular.

From my particular moral perspective, this is a Bad Thing. The state profitting from prisoner deaths is such an amazingly bad idea for the reasons Tortuf and others have laid out.

That said, I'm going to slap you around a bit, Pyx_e. As much as I like you, I don't want to see you standing by the Pearly Gates and holding the clipboard. I don't even want me in that job. Buying prison market organs cannot be grounds for being denied Heaven, or else grace is a cruel joke.

The people who buy these organs aren't all necessarily monsters. They're also husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, children, friends and family: For those willing to do so, keeping their loved one alive by buying a prison market liver or kidney when a "legitimate" transplant isn't available would be a clear-cut issue of practicality as well as morality. It would be the greater sin in their eyes to let their loved one die.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
"Encouraged" as in drugged stupid, tied to the bed, and kept like that till its time to kill them. Convicted criminals don't make choices in China.

I think the world as a whole is going to escape the Niven scenario by the skin of its teeth. But only just. Peopel will pay to live longer or healthier lives. And the people with most money will pay the most. If the rich and the powerful can get what they need to live by taking it from the poor and the weak, they will do so.

In the long run, if we are to avoid the genral pillaging of the bodies of the poor by the rich, what we need is to be able to regrow organs to order. And I think we will be able to, though it mught be decades or centuries before we're much good at it (more likely in vivo than in vitro as in Niven's Gift from Earth)

But in the meantime there is the stopgap of tissue grown in culture which can be used as a component in synthetic organs or in prosthetics. And we're gettign better tat that fast - for example people are now begining to make replacements for major blood vessels out of tubes of jelly-like stuff infused with cultured cells from the intended recipient.

And (stop laughing at the back) attempts to develop synthetic meat for vegetarians are leading to new techniques. There are people trying to grow muscles cells into tissues with the taste and texture and mouth feel of real meat. Its a short step from there to being able to make real muscles that can be used to fix broken ones. We can alerady almost-but-not-quite make workable skin fo grafting. And liver is in sight. If we can grow liver tissue tha actually works (the blood supply is a bugger) than we can start saving lives.
 
Posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep (# 5267) on :
 
Ok, so we've got the liver, who's bringing the fava beans and the chianti?
 
Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :
 
Chianti is fine, but I'd go for liver, bacon and onions. Perhaps a fried egg.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
OK somewhere right now in this world there is some stinking rich person who has made his money of the backs of the poor, he is by any decent standard a criminal. That person has abused their body to the extent the need a new liver. He has the money to “buy” a liver. The liver he purchased came from a man who was falsely imprisoned in a country that has one of the worst human rights records on the planet. On his false imprisonment he suffered a mistrial and sentenced to death. His blood type and DNA were taken and he was executed to order. Tell me how this possibility is even justifiable?

P
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
OK somewhere right now in this world there is some stinking rich person who has made his money of the backs of the poor, he is by any decent standard a criminal. That person has abused their body to the extent the need a new liver. He has the money to “buy” a liver. The liver he purchased came from a man who was falsely imprisoned in a country that has one of the worst human rights records on the planet. On his false imprisonment he suffered a mistrial and sentenced to death. His blood type and DNA were taken and he was executed to order. Tell me how this possibility is even justifiable?

P
He is a friend of those in power. THose in "power" depend on the scumbag. Isn't that justification enough?

It's 100% wrong, immoral, evil but we aren't talking about an even 1% right, moral or good world.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Tell me how this possibility is even justifiable?
Its not. But it happens, now and again. Just as kidnapping for organ transplant happens now and again. Probably not as often as the newspapers make out, but probably increasingly frequent.

The rich and the powerful will steal the body parts of the poor and the weak if they want to, and if they can get away with it. Just as in the past they stole their land, or their sheep, or their daughers. That's what being rich and powerful means, the ability to get what you want when others can't.

And is stealing the body parts of a poor man really tht much morally worse than stealing his whole body and sending him off to die in a foreign field?

Its all in the Bible. The Levite's concubine. Samueal's warning to the people about what will happen if they have a king. David and Bathsheba. Naboth's vineyard.

Yes we can stop it. With all those icky things like law and democracy and so on. Politics.
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
I haven't finished exploring exactly which details are causing the resonation -- but the issue re: the Chinese prisoners and harvest for transplant "feels" a lot like the issue of harvesting embryonic and fetal tissue for research (from unwanted products of infertility treatments, and from abortions).

I wonder, in general, are the same folks lined up "for", "against" and "undecided" on both issues?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Just like they are lined up for abortion and capital punishment I imagine: close to dead horse, let alone dead convict territory.
 
Posted by KenWritez (# 3238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Tell me how this possibility is even justifiable?
I have a counter to your post, let's see if it gets us anywhere:

We have a beloved pastor of a Chinese church that has a wealthy and influential member. The pastor has inoperable liver cancer and needs a transplant to survive. But he's so far down the waiting list for transplants he'll be dead years before he'd be likely to receive one. There are no other sources of human livers available to him. He has no money to buy a liver from the prison organ market. The wealthy and influential church member pulls strings to get his pastor a liver from the prison organ market and subsequently a transplant. The member doesn't know what sort of man the donor was, but assumes he was a criminal.
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Oh pulleassse. If China is going to to be the asshole CommunoAuthoritariaCapitalist country that it is, and it has different values than us JudeoChristian-indoctrinated-puppets, than how in the fuck can it be a bad thing if anybody gets some benefit from it, regardless of their wealth or not. The Chinese are the ones making the fucking rules. I am glad somebody is there to receive the benefit and get off the list in a country for a "free" liver somewhere else so a poorer person might have a chance to get a shot at it. Puns intended.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
harvest for transplant "feels" a lot like the issue of harvesting embryonic and fetal tissue for research (from unwanted products of infertility treatments, and from abortions).
It feels very differnt to me, and a lot worse. I suspect this is because:


In about that order.

And it does feel a lot worse. If done by private individuals they should be treated as criminals. If by the government I think it would be a moral (if not a political) justification for armed resitance. If the friends and relations of the condemned were to attack the jails they were kept in, I suspect I would be rooting for them.
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
There was another issue in the Niven story that I don't think anyone's mentioned yet as a danger... the loering of the bar on what's considered a capital crime.

If I remember the story correctly, the protagonist had been convicted of jaywalking.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Sorry, I did not make myself clear. My understanding is that in most countries the transplant of organs is done on a “need” basis and the waiting list is triaged by a well tried set of criteria. Issue such as status, value to society and wealth do not enter the equation. At all. In every country that runs a transplant service I understand the need is greater than the supply. I advocate donor cards, I even advocate a default setting of “harvest unless told not to.” I would wish life and a release from suffering to all.

My previous example is only a horrific worst case example. The only civilised and decent answer is that everyone (including death row inmates) agree to pass their organs into the tried and tested system for equitable organ distribution. In that system money, status and “worth to society” have no bearing. To do any less is to advocate murder. To do any more is either eugenics or offering ones balls to up to Mammon and worship Satan’s dick because the mighty dollar is all that matters. Where your heart is, there is your treasure also.

KenW, your example is confusing. Not least because I was left asking how the pastor would have felt knowing he had caused the death of the person the liver should have gone to if he had not had it been queue jumped er sorry I mean purchased for him?

P
 
Posted by KenWritez (# 3238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I advocate donor cards, I even advocate a default setting of “harvest unless told not to.”
FWIW I agree.

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
KenW, your example is confusing. Not least because I was left asking how the pastor would have felt knowing he had caused the death of the person the liver should have gone to if he had not had it been queue jumped er sorry I mean purchased for him?
You raise a good point. I apologize my example was confusing, I deliberately did not describe the pastor's feelings because he wasn't the man I wanted to examine; the influential donor was.

I agree this is a worst case and unlikely scenario, so I'm not in any way nodding and winking at China's human rights and prisoner treatment records.

The influential member I tried to paint as a "normal" person, someone who isn't that different from you or me, someone whose motives are entirely understandable. He's not Snidely Whiplash, a conscious doer of evil. He wants his pastor healthy and this is the only way he can see to achieve that, aside from God healing him miraculously.

You painted those who used the prison organ market as paragons of evil, plutocrats bent on destroying the weak to enrich themselves, and I saw that imagery as simplistic. I wanted you to show you another side to the situation, one perhaps you'd not considered.

[ 29. September 2006, 15:45: Message edited by: KenWritez ]
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
....The only civilised and decent answer....
P
Ah. "Civilized".

I am not aware of a better harbinger of cultural bigotry in one word anywhere.

P.S. I never thought I would see the day where I would be defending China's sovereignity, but I guess there's a first time for everything.
 
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
...but assumes he was a criminal.
There's only one crime in China - disagreeing with the Party. While some of the Falun Gong claims are not substantiated, it's undeniable that a very large number of people have been arrested,
quote:
According to the Falun Gong's Falun Dafa Clearwisdom.net site, there are, as of June 3, 2006, 2,898 reported cases of Falun Gong practitioners dying in police and government custody in China
The assumption is not supported by the record of the Chinese government.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I never thought I would see the day where I would be defending China's sovereignity
As they have an army bigger than the population of most countries, and nukes as well, I don't think they need you or me or anyone else to defend their sovreignty. They are quite capable of doing it themselves. We don't have to defend them, just live with them.

And if they do something nasty, we ought to say its nasty. Unless we really don't care about defending our freedom to speak.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
I am not aware of a better harbinger of cultural bigotry in one word anywhere.
And that would be due to your assholedness.

Granted civilised is a subjective term but so is barbaric.

P
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
I am not saying not to speak about it, but Zeus knows I am going to excercise my free speak on the cultural bigotry being exhibited when various others do.

There is no one here that lives in a country that hasn't done the same or a lot worse in it's history. That you have amended your ways to your satisfaction does not make you necessarily superior to China or anywhere else contrary to popular myth. Your bombs are falling on Iraq too.

I have to yet again point out that each rich person that gets sold a kidney in China is one less person on the "free countries" waiting lists. It may not be very apetizing from a Judeo-Christian Bigot perspective, but it's THEIR way.
If you don't like capital punishment, fine, ban it in your own country. But China has a right to "civilize" itself in its own way, in its own time. As long as it leaves other countries alone, you shouldn't judge since your country wasn't exactly lily-white when it came to the topic.
 
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :
 
I don’t often agree with Anglican clergy but agree with Pix_e

quote:
Pyx_e:
My understanding is that in most countries the transplant of organs is done on a “need” basis and the waiting list is triaged by a well tried set of criteria. Issue such as status, value to society and wealth do not enter the equation. At all. In every country that runs a transplant service I understand the need is greater than the supply. I advocate donor cards, I even advocate a default setting of “harvest unless told not to.” I would wish life and a release from suffering to all.
Do feel there is a need for to regulate to stop harvesting. Was disturbed to find in South India how easy it is to get human spare parts. With some villages near Trichy, the children are being breed for harvesting. The things we do to stay a live

quote:
Pyx_e:
KenW, your example is confusing. Not least because I was left asking how the pastor would have felt knowing he had caused the death of the person the liver should have gone to if he had not had it been queue jumped er sorry I mean purchased for him?
This, I find very disturbing as didn’t Christ say something about laying ones life down for others. In a way this pastor did take away somebody’s chance of life.

Would be interested to know what medical checks are made on the prisoners to make sure those who receive are not going to contract an unpleasant surprise.

[learn to use UBB code, fuckmuppet]

[ 29. September 2006, 19:18: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
...barbaric...

I stand corrected, there was a better harbinger of cultural bigotry in one word.

[ 29. September 2006, 17:14: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
 
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
I would hope at least that the possibility of harvesting organs from prisoners convicted of capital offenses would result in taking better care of those prisoners... Anybody read The Heavenly Man? Rather appalling conditions to survive, in Chinese prisons. The prisons may actually become more humane because of this.

I believe in the death penalty, certainly for murder (I'm not ready to argue that we should apply the death penalty for all the OT capital offenses!) - but yeah, as the Niven story illustrates, when driven by greed the definition of "capital offense" can get very slippery... [Eek!]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
I would hope at least that the possibility of harvesting organs from prisoners convicted of capital offenses would result in taking better care of those prisoners...
I would hope that prisoners would be treated decently regardless of how much we gain from thgeir imprisonment.

Any doctor who would participate in such a program is not morally fit to be a doctor.
 
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
Anybody read Never Let Me Go?
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
I get your point. Executing prisoners to order is not too far from raising people to harvest organs. Fortunately for me, I maintain an unhealthy lifestyle that makes me an unsuitable organ donor.
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
harvest for transplant "feels" a lot like the issue of harvesting embryonic and fetal tissue for research (from unwanted products of infertility treatments, and from abortions).
It feels very differnt to me, and a lot worse. I suspect this is because:

...
I could see and even agree with a lot of what you said -- except for that one. It doesn't become alright, or less bad, to unfairly wipe out another life if only I sneak up and do it in such a way that the victim is unaware.

I don't trust my own government to do simple things like tax me correctly or keep my environment clean without going stupidly overboard, wonderful though I think my own form of government is -- so I'm awfully glad not to be a Chinese prisoner.
 
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
I would hope at least that the possibility of harvesting organs from prisoners convicted of capital offenses would result in taking better care of those prisoners...
I would hope that prisoners would be treated decently regardless of how much we gain from thgeir imprisonment.
I agree - but it's certainly not the case in China (and many other parts of the world *sigh*).
 
Posted by Max. (# 5846) on :
 
I'm a bit undecided at the moment on this subject - obviously I'm against the Death Penalty and it makes me physically sick to enter a country (such as Singapore) and to think that they are executing people in the same country (Fridays at Sunrise)

But - how are they executing these people without damaging the organs? If they were to electrocute them they would surely fry the organs, lethal injection would surely poison the organs?

Max
 
Posted by Pure as the Driven Yellow Snow (# 9397) on :
 
The only way to retrieve organs is while the body is physically alive.
An anaesthetic contains three components usually.
1) Analgesia (pain relief)
2) Sedation (keeps you asleep)
3) Muscle relaxation (Keeps you paralysed so the machine can breath for you and it makes it easier to grub around inside)

For organ retrieval normarily, proof of brain death ocurs whilst the body is being sustained by artifical means.

I suspect (but do not know) here is that the person undergoes an anaesthetic, the organs are retrieved and then the ventialtor switched off whilst maintaining the triad of anaesthesia.

It would not be possible to kill somebody and then retrieve the organs; too much damage too quickly.

It is possible to keep the body alive while the brain is dead and it is this that makes organ donation possible and appropriate in my opinion in the usual circumstances. YMMV.

Here, I'm not so sure.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
Interesting. I think Max.'s question is valid and PatDYS points to the obvious answer: anaesthesize the prisoner, take out any vital organs you wish, and thereby execute the prisoner... To be sure to kill quickly, they could always rip out the beating heart last, even if that is not particularly required. And if the prisoner is to be taught a final lesson, or if finances are tight, one can simply switch to the injection of a strong muscle relexant. After all, the only thing that is really required is that the prisoner keeps still...
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
I'm reminded of this punk rock classic,
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
It doesn't become alright, or less bad, to unfairly wipe out another life if only I sneak up and do it in such a way that the victim is unaware.
It doesn't become all right but it does become less bad, because when its planned and drawn out over a long period the victim is put into a state of fear.

Is a murderer who tortures or rapes their victim before killing them a worse criminal than one who kills quickly? I think the gut feeling of most people would be that they are.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
anaesthesize the prisoner, take out any vital organs you wish, and thereby execute the prisoner...
I imagine that that's what they do. Though I also suspect that prisoners could be kept alive after the removal of some organs. A kidney here, a chunk of liver there, and eyeball on Tuesday, some bone marrow on Wednesday, and when they were finally useless you pop them off with a bullet. Shooting is the preferred method of execution in China. The dead persons survivors are billed for the ammunition, or were until very recently.

The thing is so obviously wrong that its hard to imagine anyone doing it. Its wrong on the raping babies and eating people alive sort of level. Intolerable. People living under a government that did that would have a moral argument for rebelling. Though I suspect that investing a hell of a lot of money on research into artificial organs, stem cell therapies and in vivo genetic engineering would be a more effective way of stopping it.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Interesting. I think Max.'s question is valid and PatDYS points to the obvious answer: anaesthesize the prisoner, take out any vital organs you wish, and thereby execute the prisoner... To be sure to kill quickly, they could always rip out the beating heart last, even if that is not particularly required.
Or couldn't they just hook the prisoner up to a life-support machine, then put a bullet in his brain? Presumably the machine would keep the carcase in good enough condition for the organs to be harvested, and the prisoner would feel no more pain - physical or mental - than in a normal execution.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
No need for fancy life-support machines - the brain is already set up to regulate those functions. They could just put the patient in a coma.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
For "patient" read "prisoner", natch.
 
Posted by Duck (# 10181) on :
 
Originally posted by Ken:
quote:
The thing is so obviously wrong that its hard to imagine anyone doing it. Its wrong on the raping babies and eating people alive sort of level. Intolerable.
I think that the death penalty is wrong to that extent - i don't believe that deliberately killing people is ever right.
However, if you accept the death penalty, then surely saving the lives of several people by its application is morally good? isn't saving other lives part of the 'justification' for it in terms of deterrence & preventing recidivism anyway? If you decide that criminals owe society reparations for the crimes they have committed, then why shouldn't part of that be to use their organs to save the lives of others? If people have already forfeited their right to life, then surely they have forfeited their right to a liver?
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
Duck, your arguement pre-supposes that the criminal really is a criminal, and not just someone the government wants to silence. It also pre-supposes that the person was guilty - there have been enough miscarriages of justice to persuade me that the death penalty is never a safe option, let alone carving the body up into useful pieces.
 
Posted by Duck (# 10181) on :
 
True, and maybe i didn't make it clear enough that i'm personally not in favour of capital punishment to begin with for all the reasons you give.

But once someone is going to be killed, then you've already effectively said that their body is no longer their own. So if out of that death which is already going to happen, then you can potentially save several lives - why not? It just seems to logically flow from the pro-capital-punishment arguments - i'm surprised involuntary organ donation doesn't already happen in the USA. They are dead - how's using their organs to help someone else worse than killing them in the first place?
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
You may not have seen some of the reports on (think it was C4) that if you are accused of a capital crime in China you have a 99.9 % probability of conviction - I wonder why that might be.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
If I were O-negative, I wouldn't even JAYWALK in China.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Duck:
But once someone is going to be killed, then you've already effectively said that their body is no longer their own. So if out of that death which is already going to happen, then you can potentially save several lives - why not? It just seems to logically flow from the pro-capital-punishment arguments -
Larry Niven really did put it better than I could.

If you ever get the chance to read his very short SF novel A Gift from Earth, give it a bash.
 
Posted by Duck (# 10181) on :
 
Read it, thanks - good suggestion.
I'd reckon that China's capital punishment record has more to do with it being a police state than the organ donations though.

Would it be such a problem if money wasn't involved - if the organs just got put on some sort of central waiting list like the UK transplant list?
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0