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
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Former Fijian prime minister Mahendra Chaudhry spoke at the Yushan Forum in Taipei on Monday, saying that while global conflicts were causing economic strife in the world, Taiwan’s New Southbound Policy (NSP) serves as a stabilizing force in the Indo-Pacific region and offers strategic opportunities for small island nations such as Fiji, as well as support in the fields of public health, education, renewable energy and agricultural technology. Taiwan does not have official diplomatic relations with Fiji, but it is one of the small island nations covered by the NSP. Chaudhry said that Fiji, as a sovereign nation, should support
RSS