When Rules Get In The Way of Right

It seems there's a death-row inmate in Fort Wayne who is slated to die by lethal injection on May 25th, but he's making appeals right now to postpone the execution. His sister is a diabetic newly diagnosed with steatohepatitis and needs a liver transplant soon. The inmate, covicted of killing an elderly woman and setting her house on fire, wants to give his liver to his sister. Easy enough, right?

It gets messy though, because the lethal injection may poison the organs and make them unusable. Electrocution is not legal in the state, but he says he'd do it if his sister could then get his liver. There is an option to give her half of his liver, and then let him heal up until he's well enough to be executed. Of course, it would be better for his sister to get the whole thing, but he would die if it was removed, and that's not legal either. And who would operate on a perfectly healthy person and remove his entire liver anyway? I'm no ethicist, but I'm betting physicians wouldn't be lining up for that one. (Ok, well some might...)

I don't know any good reason why they shouldn't change a rule or two to allow prisoners to donate their organs, there's got to be some way to do it - especially if the prisoner agrees.

Of course, someone else probably has an equally good reason why we should not let him do it. I'd like to hear it, though.

Here's one of the stories about it.