 |
|
Friday, July 25, 2008
I saw this the other day when I was waiting for class to start. This class is in a computer lab, so if the teacher is boring me I can surf. It's been stuck in my mind the past few days.
A series of attacks left 43-year-old Jeff Harriman brain dead. His family had hoped to donate his organs, but now that won't happen. Family members met Tuesday morning with law enforcement officials in Pottawattamie County. Relatives now say organ donation could jeopardize key evidence. They left the meeting convinced an autopsy is needed to prosecute Harriman's attackers. A short time later, family members went to the hospital to take him off life support. Relatives say organ donation would have ensured something positive would come out of Harriman's death. "I thought that would be great, but it's not as important as convicting these animals," said Harriman's mother, Ellie DeBell. Of course, this gets me, once again, to pondering what is really most important.
To be certain, this is not to judge this family and say what they should do. They should do what they want to do. I think we can look at this a bit more abstractly, however, since this is not as unique a situation as any good person would like.
No one can deny that the woman's statement, " I thought that would be great, but it's not as important as convicting these animals," is true from a certain perspective. This is the perspective of a grieving mother, not the perspective of a person hooked to a dialysis machine, or that person's mother. Both are right. How can anyone look into either mother's eyes and tell her she's wrong?
Doing a little research, I found that, depending on which site you choose to heed, between 15 and 18 people die in America each day while waiting for a suitable organ for transplant.
Imagine that. You're in that bed, your doctor knows what to do to save you, has the skill to do just that, but for a lack of parts, you simply waste away and die. Imagine your child being one of the many people this happens to early in life. It makes that talk about the immorality of cloning look like the bullshit it is, doesn't it?
On the other hand, straightforward murder statistics are not easy to find. Most are rates per 100,000 people. I found only one site that provides straight numbers. (I will admit to limited research time. I really should be working on that Lizzie Borden paper right now.) If this site is reliable, it seems that in 2006 about 47 people were murdered in America every day.
So which folks are more important?
Certainly, a lot of innocent people are going down here. One could say that some of the folks on the transplant lists are there because of choices they made. They chose to drink too much or do lots of drugs, and are now suffereing for poor choices. That would be true. However, it isn't MOST of them, and the ones who aren't there because they used to be speedball addicts don't deserve to be judged along with those guys. Especially the children.
It's just as true that it isn't always the innocent to end up on a slab. Killers, thieves, molesters, rapists, and drug dealers prey on each other quite a bit as well. Many murder victims are simply the guys who didn't pull their guns out fast enough, or who trusted the wrong fellow criminal. It seems that the victim in this story didn't need to live where he did. He was there because he chose to be, and I personally feel that choosing to be homeless is a little askew. So if we can't decide which people are more important, as is usually our wont, how do we know what is more proper?
As I see it, it comes down to a choice between justice and mercy. Which is ultimately more important?
Obviously, most Americans are ready to champion Justice. We're a law and order people, despite our ironic crime statistics. We are the country that hold the greatest percentage of its own population in prison, after all. However, we never really seem to be safer.
In addition, we're about the wealthgiest folks in the world, but not the healthiest. In fact, there are very few people who feel that the American health system does not need an overhaul, and those are largely people who are making money on the system as it is now.
Could it be that we don't quite have our priorities as a nation straight here? Don't get me wrong, the people who beat this man should be caught and imprisoned. I wonder, though, could any of us choose to pursue that goal if we had to explain to someone else in that hospital that we made the decision to NOT save his or her life?
I, of course, can only speak for myself, but if I were the victim, I would want my organs passed on (and I AM a donor. Are you?) As much as I would resent being murdered (and having a sore and troubled world deprived of my light, my wit, and my unsurpassed humility), I do not consider my memory to be more important than the promise and hope of a young life I could be saving. There may be more innocents being murdered than dying from lack of organs, but the way I see it, we can help the living and suffering more than we can help the dead. At least, until we perfect the cloning of human organs, that's how I see it.
That's just me, though. How do you see it?
In Addition: Before posting this, I went looking for a suitable graphic. Obviously, I didn't find one. I did, however, find an article very germane to this topic, a thought- provoking, but short, essay on mercy vs. justice. Does this help you consider this, or just muddy the water?
Posted at 10:54 am by Joe_the_Troll
 | | | Cody Bones
July 25, 2008 02:34 PM PDT
Here is my two cents. If not convicted, these men might murder again, maybe a child like you say. How would you feel if your child was murdered by these men that went free because of the lack of an autopsy. It strikes me that society is better served by putting these man away so that they can't murder again, vs using the organs to donate. Trust me, I don't make this point lightly, the margin is razor thin. The tipping point is that these men pose a clear and present danger to society, and might murder more people than the organs might save. Pure conjecture I know, but I don't know how else to balance the scales. Again, great post Joe, you have been setting the bar rather high lately my friend. You most certainly trump me and my waterskiing escapades. Good job. | |
| | | Joe the Troll
July 25, 2008 04:39 PM PDT
Thank you, Cody. I did consider the situation you bring up. First, I have no idea why an autopsy is absolutely necessary for a murder conviction. Am I supposed to believe that if this guy had NOT been beaten, in front of witnesses, with a railroad tie, then he would have succumbed to brain death some other way? A bizarrely timed case of meningitis, perhaps? It seems clear to me that the beating and the condition are closely related.
That being said, they MIGHT kill another person. However, without organs, someone WILL die, and soon. From this one person, we can save the guy who needs new lungs, the kid that needs kidney, the mom that waits for a liver, the dad whose heart has only a few beats left in it. These folks WILL die TOMORROW without the lungs. No maybe.
Does a maybe outweigh a certainty? | |
| | | Tim
July 26, 2008 11:51 AM PDT
I am conflicted. I think that the family's wishes should trump that of law enforcement. Since when should the Govt. just step in and say that we need to cut up your dearly departed because it MIGHT garner some evidence that we MIGHT be able to use against the animals who did this? It's just the MAN interfering in a family's decision. God help us, what freedom will the Govt. sieze next in the name of law and order. | |
| | | Miz UV
July 26, 2008 11:31 PM PDT
Agree with Tim, the family's wishes should prevail -- or the deceased's, if we know what they are. I would want my organs donated. The evidence thing is kinda iffy anyway. Even if they get the evidence they need for trial, a conviction is not guaranteed, never is. | |
| | | Jodie Kash
July 27, 2008 09:21 PM PDT
Ultimately, there may be little to no justice, punishment brief or laughable. Do good in the moment, find peace in positive action right now. | |
|
|
 |
