Thread: Shall the criminally insane be put down like a dog with rabies?

We already kill innocent people (in comas) in order to harvest their organs for transplant. The argument is that their lives aren't worth living if they are going to spend every moment of the rest of their lives in a catatonic state; they have no chance of recovery; and it costs lots of money to keep them alive, so let's be practical and do something useful. Let's invent a term ("brain dead") to make the process sound more palatable.

If it's OK to kill and harvest innocent people, why shouldn't the same be done to violently insane people who have no chance of recovery AND have killed others? Their lives aren't worth living if they are going to spend every moment of the rest of their lives sedated/strapped down/in a straightjacket; they have no chance of recovery; and it costs lots of money to keep them alive, so let's be practical and do something useful. Let's invent a term ("mind death"?) to make the process sound more palatable.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

We already kill innocent people (in comas) in order to harvest their organs for transplant. The argument is that their lives aren't worth living if they are going to spend every moment of the rest of their lives in a catatonic state; they have no chance of recovery; and it costs lots of money to keep them alive, so let's be practical and do something useful. Let's invent a term ("brain dead") to make the process sound more palatable.

If it's OK to kill and harvest innocent people, why shouldn't the same be done to violently insane people who have no chance of recovery AND have killed others? Their lives aren't worth living if they are going to spend every moment of the rest of their lives sedated/strapped down/in a straightjacket; they have no chance of recovery; and it costs lots of money to keep them alive, so let's be practical and do something useful. Let's invent a term ("mind death"?) to make the process sound more palatable.

This is nonsense. There is a huge difference between carrying out an action that kills a physically healthy person and not providing artificial cardio-pulmonary function to a human who is not otherwise viable.

Originally Posted by icedog

This is nonsense. There is a huge difference between carrying out an action that kills a physically healthy person and not providing artificial cardio-pulmonary function to a human who is not otherwise viable.

They don't "not provide artificial cardio-pulmonary function" when they harvest organs. They wheel the live donors into the operating theatre, pump them full of anasthetic to stop them twitching as they operate (God forbid they should wake up mid operation!), then they cut the beating heart and other organs out of the person.

That's the reality, not very palatable in those terms is it?

I fail to see why these people are less deserving of long-term care than convicted killers or violent criminally insane people who can't be cured.

Personally I'd rather spend millions in a vain attempt to save an innocent person's life than spend it keeping a killer in comfort for decades.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

They don't "not provide artificial cardio-pulmonary function" when they harvest organs. They wheel the live donors into the operating theatre, pump them full of anasthetic to stop them twitching as they operate (God forbid they should wake up mid operation!), then they cut the beating heart and other organs out of the person.

That's the reality, not very palatable in those terms is it?

I fail to see why these people are less deserving of long-term care than convicted killers or violent criminally insane people who can't be cured.

Personally I'd rather spend millions in a vain attempt to save an innocent person's life than spend it keeping a killer in comfort for decades.

That is not reality, at least not in this country. I just two months ago attended the funeral of a friend who was "harvested". He was no longer viable due to a massive stroke that killed his brain function. He was on a heart-lung machine until they made arrangements for his organs (as he wished in life) and when the time was right, they disconnected him and removed everything that could be used by another person. His name was Joe. He was not killed by any action of any human. Joe ceased to exist when the blood clot hit his brain.

I don't know where you are getting your info but it's wrong. No one cuts any "beating heart" out of anyone if they want to use that heart. I spent seventeen years in the medical business and I was married to an operating room nurse. I have watched this happen four times.

This is off topic anyway. The question was whether the criminally insane should be executed.

Originally Posted by icedog

I don't know where you are getting your info but it's wrong. No one cuts any "beating heart" out of anyone if they want to use that heart.

One example, don't know if this link will work:
ITU and Anaesthetic Management of the Organ donor
Some quotes (my highlighting):

Perioperative Management

* Following the diagnosis of Brain Death
* Therapy shifts in emphasis from cerebral protection to optimizing organ function for subsequent transplantation.
* The normal sequelae of brain death results in cardiovascular instability & poor organ perfusion.
...
Respiratory System
* Goals are to maintain health of lungs for transplant whilst optimizing oxygen delivery to other transplantable organs.
...
Organ Retrieval I

* Anaesthetic support is required to provide physiological support of the donor during the retrieval phase.
* Intensive care management continues intraoperatively with an emphasis on optimum organ perfusion and oxygenation.
...
Intraoperative Management
...
* Use of neuromuscular blocking agents
- Used to avoid reflex neuromuscular activity.
- Facilitates surgical exposure.
...
Anaesthetic Management
...
* Anaesthetic support ends with occlusion of the proximal aorta and in situ organ flushing.
* At this time all monitoring along with ventilation and supportive measures are discontinued.
* Removal of donor organs begin.

I assure you, they do not allow a donor to die naturally, then take them in to theater to extract the organs.
Not even in the mighty USA. Sorry to break this to you.

Ray, Your argument is proving my point. The first thing listed states the donor has already died. Further, where do you see anyone is removing a "beating heart"? You just put up a list that states the use of neuro-muscular blocking agents. That means they assure the heart is not beating. Maybe you are watching too much Monty Python. Don't forget about the machine that goes bing.

Once the brain has stopped functioning, the donor is kept alive artificially to preserve the usable state of the organs.

I voted yes. When I did I had the likes of Charles Manson in mind. Manson is the poster child for criminally insane imho. Had California not done away with the death penalty they would not have had to support him for the last 30 some odd years.

Originally Posted by icedog

where do you see anyone is removing a "beating heart"?

"occlusion of the proximal aorta" - Stops the beating heart from pumping blood to the rest of the body Then they stop life support and start removing the vital organs.

Do you need a video to prove it? *

Just to clarify I do support transplantation. But I strongly object to the misleading information that is fed to the public to persuade them to sign up as donors.

You have accepted that "brain death" is essentially the same as "death." Is incurable insanity really that different? I'm not seriously proposing it, just making a comparison.

(*) Not a graphic video of the moment, but if you go to 09:25 in the following documentary video, the surgeon describes when and how they stop the heart by placing ice on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOBWM...e=channel_page