Offense was taken due to a fundamentsl lack of understanding of the organ procurement process. First, it does not occur--in any population-- without donor or family consent. (Often, even a person known as a donor--whether specified on state registry or in advance directive--will be left intact if family objects at the time of death; great care is taken not to harm anyone in the process, and that includes grieving family.) Secondly, harvest does not occur prior to death. Lethal injection does not preclude organ donation, and the timing if a scheduled death makes it possible to assemble procurement personnel so that reperfusion (initiation of life support measures to continue circulation to the organs) may be unnecessary. (Those who are donors know that, after death is declared, efforts to preseve the integrity of their organs may be made. But if you know exactly when an individual is going to die, teams can be resent; perfusion does not need to be established in order to keep organs viable for many, many hours as teams fly in from around the country.)
The onky real ethical concern arises if the state in ANY way coerces inmates to become donors. Practices in China--where such coercion exists on an appalling level-- has caused it to be impossible for even the inmates who wish to donate to do so.
There is a large group of inmates who feel their rights are violated because, in most places, they cannot CHOOSE to be organ donors, as they would if non-incarcerated. if they meet medical criteria and voluntarily choose to be organ donors, is it not inhumane to deny them (and their families) his measure of dignity and worth? Should their families be deprived of the comfort organ donation often offers, when a loved one is lost? Is there a particular reason a healthy inmate competent to make the decision should be denied this final wish?
I don't think so.
