Mississippi governor Haley Barbour has issued one of the creepiest statements ever issued by a state government :
The Mississippi Parole Board reviewed the sisters’ request for a pardon and recommended that I neither pardon them, nor commute their sentence. At my request, the Parole Board subsequently reviewed whether the sisters should be granted an indefinite suspension of sentence, which is tantamount to parole, and have concurred with my decision to suspend their sentences indefinitely.Gladys Scott’s release is conditioned on her donating one of her kidneys to her sister, a procedure which should be scheduled with urgency. [emphasis added]
First of all, if the women deserve to have their sentences indefinitely suspended, it should be based on some other criteria other than the prisoner is sick and costing the state too much money. Second, you don’t make a condition of release that you give up a vital organ .
According to the statement, Gladys Scott has already agreed to donate the kidney. Why then did the governor feel the need to add in the Orwellian language about making it a condition of her release? Is that even legal? It’s certainly not moral.
I’m all for saving taxpayer dollars, but you don’t do it by giving prisoners a “Get Out of Jail Free” card in exchange for body parts.
UPDATE: On Twitter, reader John M. writes :
You steal bases . . . how is it immoral to make X a condition of clemency (i.e., a thing a person is by definition not entitled). If X is not itself immoral, is generally agreed to be a good act, is not motivated by malice, and was consented to by all parties.
Let me first say that Ms. Scott’s williness to donate an organ to save her sister is praiseworthy. And the governor of Mississippi would have also been worthy of praise had it decided that a woman who was already deserving of clemency should be released as soon as possible in order that she may save her sister’s life.
But that is not what was said. Perhaps Gov. Barbour was afraid of appearing to be too compassionate a conservative and so decided to say that the motivation behind the decision was for the state was to save money. While I’m sure he thought he was appealing to the Tea Party sensibility, it merely makes him look crass and hard-hearted. Barbour also crossed a clear ethical line by making the organ donation a condition of Ms. Scott’s probation.
Presumably, if Scott has a change of heart and does not go through with the procedure she’ll be thrown back in jail. This is why the the ethical line has shifted between consent and coercion. As the Christian bioethicist Dr. Gregory Rutecki notes , “The hallmark ethic of organ donation has always been informed consent . Informed consent must be free of any hint of coercion .” [emphasis in original] Consent to donate an organ must able to be freely revoked at any time. If Ms. Scott is returned to prison because she had second thoughts on her way to the OR, then that is coercion.
Paying people to donate an organ has long been considered an unethical practice that is fraught with potential for exploitation (and is almost universally considered immoral by Christian bioethicists). Congress has even outlawed the practice to prevent the wealthy from taking advantage of poor people by enticing them to sell their organs. How then can we justify a state governement using its extensive influence and control over a prisoner to entice them to exchange a vital organ for parole?
The fact that Ms. Scott included such a stipulation as a condition of her release raises serious questions about the legitimacy of her ability to freely consent. No doubt the love she has for her sister leads her to make such a sacrifice willingly. But the fact that her continued freedom is depending on the donation muddies the moral waters.
