I would like to state my objection to transplants using organs taken from executed death-row inmates.
First, murder is cruel and in violation of nature. It is generally an irrational act, committed by someone not in their right mind. There is nothing natural about the premature taking of a life. All of the above is true of the taking of a life through execution, except, of course, for the introduction of the element of premeditation. Both involve denying someone their life.
Everyone must die in the end and we will all shuffle off this mortal coil sooner or later. If we despise murderers for the way they deny their victims their natural lifespan, how can we turn around and do the same thing, albeit under the auspices of the legal death penalty?
Using the organs of executed convicts for transplants is not completely in line with medical ethics, even though it can mean that the recipients of the organs temporarily escape death. The convict’s organs are removed under artificial conditions: The donor is killed because of the implementation of the death penalty and because there happens to be someone with the same blood type in need of an organ.
How is this not manslaughter? The good that comes of these donations may well make violations of procedural justice more palatable, but it doesn’t change the fact that the violations exist.
Ever since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) officially signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in May 2009, Taiwan has built a name as a country that upholds human rights. Regarding the last round of executions, Minister of Justice Tseng Yung-fu (曾勇夫) said during a question-and-answer session in the Legislative Yuan that there was “a chance” the death sentence would be implemented this month. After the executions, he simply argued that his ministry acted in accordance with the law.
Not only did his comments betray a disregard for the gravity of death, they also elicited protests from the international community. Over the course of my practice, I have often witnessed bitter struggles and helplessness in the face of a natural death and have seen patients and their loved ones cherishing their final moments together. However, just as the government apologized for the wrongful execution of Chiang Kuo-ching (江國慶) in 1997, the abrupt announcement of the March 4 executions brought the debate of life and death crashing back to the table.
The current method of execution in Taiwan is death by shooting. In order to bring about the complete cessation of cardiopulmonary functions, the bullet must breach the brain’s cardiopulmonary center. Shooting is simply not accurate enough to achieve this in all cases.
According to the literature, medical professionals participating in executions stated that even if they gave the convicts a heavy dose of tranquillizer first to try to make it easier on the individual, convicts would still twitch for about 15 minutes and even cry out. It can then take extra injections of gallamine and potassium chloride to stop their hearts beating completely. If they are shot in the heart, they might struggle for nearly 10 minutes, despite cardiac rupture and bleeding.
I dare not imagine how recipients feel about accepting organs that have undergone such a process. Daisy Hung (洪蘭), chairwoman of the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at National Central University, once said that patients refuse convicts’ organs because of a serious lack of scientific knowledge. However, that is not the only explanation. People without actual clinical experience do not understand how patients feel about such things. For all these reasons I would like to call on Taiwan to abandon the extremely controversial practice of using organs from executed convicts for transplants.
Lee Yuan-teh is an emeritus professor in the College of Medicine at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
China badly misread Japan. It sought to intimidate Tokyo into silence on Taiwan. Instead, it has achieved the opposite by hardening Japanese resolve. By trying to bludgeon a major power like Japan into accepting its “red lines” — above all on Taiwan — China laid bare the raw coercive logic of compellence now driving its foreign policy toward Asian states. From the Taiwan Strait and the East and South China Seas to the Himalayan frontier, Beijing has increasingly relied on economic warfare, diplomatic intimidation and military pressure to bend neighbors to its will. Confident in its growing power, China appeared to believe
After more than three weeks since the Honduran elections took place, its National Electoral Council finally certified the new president of Honduras. During the campaign, the two leading contenders, Nasry Asfura and Salvador Nasralla, who according to the council were separated by 27,026 votes in the final tally, promised to restore diplomatic ties with Taiwan if elected. Nasralla refused to accept the result and said that he would challenge all the irregularities in court. However, with formal recognition from the US and rapid acknowledgment from key regional governments, including Argentina and Panama, a reversal of the results appears institutionally and politically
Legislators of the opposition parties, consisting of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), on Friday moved to initiate impeachment proceedings against President William Lai (賴清德). They accused Lai of undermining the nation’s constitutional order and democracy. For anyone who has been paying attention to the actions of the KMT and the TPP in the legislature since they gained a combined majority in February last year, pushing through constitutionally dubious legislation, defunding the Control Yuan and ensuring that the Constitutional Court is unable to operate properly, such an accusation borders the absurd. That they are basing this
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) was on Monday last week invited to give a talk to students of Soochow University, but her responses to questions raised by students and lecturers became a controversial incident and sparked public discussion over the following days. The student association of the university’s Department of Political Science, which hosted the event, on Saturday issued a statement urging people to stop “doxxing,” harassing and attacking the students who raised questions at the event, and called for rational discussion of the talk. Criticism should be directed at viewpoints, opinions or policies, not students, they said, adding
RSS