Alternate methods of execution

Gregory Scott Johnson, an Indiana convict sentenced to die later this month, is asking for a reprieve for an unusual reason--he wants his execution delayed so he can donate his liver to his dying sister.

It's certainly understandable (and commendable) that he would want to give his liver to his siter who needs it since he's not going to be using it anyway. But this is going to be a tough decision for the judge.

The article says, Eric Meslin, director of the Indiana University Center for Bioethics, said Johnson's offer puts doctors, lawyers and society in a dilemma.

"You can't donate a liver before you die, because that would kill you and that gets in the way of the state killing you," he said. "And you can't donate organs after you die, because the method of execution would render the organs unusable."

However, there is the option of a split-liver transplant, where they would take a part of Johnson's liver to give his sister. The surgery isn't done often because it's risky for the donor and the chances are not as good of it working well for the recipient, but it is possible. So Johnson is asking that the judge grant him enough time to have that procedure performed before his execution. The delay would be long enough to perform tests to see whether Johnson was a match for his sister and then, if so, to do the surgery and then have about 2 weeks of recovery time before he would be "healthy enough to be put to death."

In this isolated case, it seems like it would make sense to allow the man to donate his liver to his sister (if he was a good match, which we don't know yet). But it could set an interesting precedent. It's just possible that organ donation could become the next way to delay an execution long enough for one more appeal, especially since there are several organs (including kidneys) that can be donated while the donor is alive without much risk of killing them.

It seems that it would make more sense to institute an alternate method of execution (something other than electrocution or lethal injection, both of which would damage organs) that death row inmates who would like to donate their organs could opt for if they chose.

I mean, if someone is sentenced to die does it really matter what the method is as long as it's certain and humane? Good old "Madam Guillotine" might be an option that would preserve organs, although it would probably be distasteful to our society. But would there be anything more immoral or inhumane about killing someone by removing their organs under general anesthesia and then giving an injection if necessary to finish the job, than by electrocution or injection? Would that somehow deprive the state of being the executioner? I don't think so, if it was done correctly.

The only problem I can see with that option is that there might be a danger of someone other than the prisoner influencing that decision. There would probably need to be safeguards in place to make sure prisoners didn't become a source of organs against their or their family's desires.

[Hat Tip: CrimProf Blog]