Yes, we have a shortage of transplantable organs. But that does not in the least excuse this legislation in South Carolina to give reduced sentences to prisoners in return for agreeing to be an organ or bone marrow donor. No, I am not joking.
There is a terrible history in this country of using prisoners in unethical human medical experimentation. This proposal is right out of that playbook. I don’t care if they are murderers, rapists, or former executives of Enron, prisoners have intrinsic value as human beings—which if that concept is to mean anything, has to prevent them from being reduced to the moral equivalent of a string bean crop. And don’t talk to me about “choice.” The potential for coercion in prison self evident. (The story is unclear whether the organ donations could be live or would be restricted to cadavers. If “live,” it is an absolute outrage.)
China may treat prisoners as sources of organs. We should never get into that gutter. This is not to say that a prisoner should never be able to be an organ donor, but the donation would have to be freely given and without a hint of coercion or “time off for good donations.”
You have a decision to make: double or nothing.
For this week only, a generous supporter has offered to fully match all new and increased donations to First Things up to $60,000.
In other words, your gift of $50 unlocks $100 for First Things, your gift of $100 unlocks $200, and so on, up to a total of $120,000. But if you don’t give, nothing.
So what will it be, dear reader: double, or nothing?
Make your year-end gift go twice as far for First Things by giving now.
