Death row inmates can alleviate organ shortage

Eight years ago, Oregon death row inmate Christian Longo was convicted of murdering his wife and three children. After he realized the gravity of the crime he had committed, Longo decided to conclude his appeals, then donate his organs to society after his death, so his life could help save others. His petition, however, was denied by prison officials.

In the United States, some prisoners simply wish to donate their organs after their execution. However, most prisons still do not allow their inmates donate their organs. They justify this decision by pointing to the damaging nature of lethal injections used to end prisoners’ lives, the potentially diseased inmates, and the fact that prisoners may use organ donation as a way to escape death row by arguing that since they have saved a life they deserve to be taken off of death row.

However, many of these problems can be avoided with legislation and careful investigation. Organ donations from healthy prisoners would greatly alleviate the nationwide organ shortage. According to the United Network for Organ Sharing, there are currently more than 110,000 Americans in need of organs; there are more than 3,000 death row inmates, and a single healthy person could save up to eight lives through organ donations.

As for the concern that substances used to put prisoners to death are harmful to organs, there is a fast-acting drug called pentobarbital that kills the inmate quickly, leaving organs healthy, according to Longo.

It is understandable for officials to be apprehensive about whether prisoners on death row are simply willing to donate their organs in order to simply reduce their sentence. Though there is some validity to this reasoning, officials need to take into account that these prisoners have already been sentenced to death.

Also, if prisoners decide to donate after, rather than before, their execution, it is difficult for them to use a future organ donation to justify removing their death sentence. The length of the sentence has no effect on the outcome of their punishment. No matter what, these prisoners will eventually be injected with the lethal poison.

The fact that the organs belong to a prisoner does not automatically mean that the organs are not worthy of being donated. In response to the concern that the organs would be damaged by disease and the lethal injections, these organs would go through the same process that all other donated organs go through; complete scrutiny of whether or not these organs are healthy enough to be donated.

Not allowing organ donation because organs might be damaged is a premature argument. What if the organs are healthy? By not allowing organ donation at all, officials could possibly be taking away any last hope of an individual on the organ recipient list to live. After all, isn’t being saved by a convict better than not being saved at all?