Q&A: Harvesting Organs from Death-Row Inmates and Terrorists
Harvesting Organs from Death-Row Inmates and Terrorists
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Recently, Avi Gilad published a post proposing harvesting organs from terrorists for transplants as a deterrent measure (so that every terrorist would know that his death would save Jewish lives). I wanted to ask more generally whether it is appropriate for a state to make use of the organs of people sentenced to death at all, and in particular in the case of terrorists. I thought that perhaps there is a problem here in that people might think the state is eager to sentence people to death in order to use their organs, or perhaps the state would make less effort to prevent the crimes that lead to the death penalty, since the result would in any case lead to more lives being saved. It also reminded me of the verse, “And if an ox gore a man or a woman, and they die, the ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten”—perhaps there is an idea here of distancing ourselves from evil and erasing its memory. Also, in the world at large it is customary to view such a practice as the practice of dark regimes (like China, for example, and even they stopped this practice in 2015).
Best regards,
Answer
I have no problem at all with such a proposal, but of course in our emotional society, and in the West generally, it has no chance of being accepted. Just try suggesting that a wounded terrorist not be treated, or that he be given the death penalty. When such a proposal comes up, everyone is terribly shocked and starts babbling about organ trafficking and so on. In the past I devoted columns to human values versus moral values, and to the confusion between emotions and morality (for example, the cases discussed by the psychologist Haidt).
There were proposals in the past not to return the bodies of terrorists, or not to bury them but to throw their bodies out like carcasses in the field. Everyone was terribly shocked. I also remember a proposal to bury them in pigskin, which according to their belief would prevent them from getting the World to Come (with all its delights). People were terribly shocked about that too. People are stupid—what can you do.
Of course, judicial oversight mechanisms are needed to make sure this is not abused (that was the concern in China; I don’t know whether it was justified). But once a person is being killed anyway, why not use his organs to save lives?!
Discussion on Answer
Should read:
*but rather to the proposal to pay money
*the international organization would expel us, we would be declared lepers
*he was not talking about taking donations from terrorists
Heaven forbid to take organs from them. On the contrary, their evil heart should be uprooted and a warm Jewish heart transplanted into them!
Warm regards, from the bottom of my heart, Heart of Stone
I didn’t understand that comment. That is exactly what I wrote.
For some reason, the Rabbi did not address another aspect in the answer.
(I heard from Rabbi Sherlo, who was part of the committees that determine organ donation and regulate it in all its aspects.)
The whole issue of organ donations, and probably research on them as well—we, like all developed countries, are part of a global framework, donating to and receiving from shared international databases.
If we do whatever we want, we’ll simply be expelled from the international organization involved in this, and then many more people here will die.
Aside from the fact that in the eyes of the world, playing around with this issue is something bizarre, contemptible, and vile, a state that does things like this is considered a leper and repulsive, and this is also a desecration of God’s name (beyond the immediate costs in many areas for anyone considered repulsive and disgusting like a leper).
Does the Rabbi agree with these practical arguments?
(In fairness, I should note that Rabbi Sherlo’s remarks were not specific to this question, but rather to the proposal to pay money for kidney donation in order to increase “donors” and in practice, ostensibly, save lives.
Beyond the real problem of trafficking that would certainly develop around such scarce organs, and other appalling and vile exploitation that would surely result, and beyond the fact that in practice there would likely be fewer kidneys available for “donation” once it became commercial…
Bottom line: the international organization would kick us out, we’d be declared lepers, and then far more people would die than from the vile game of money in exchange for an organ.
He wasn’t talking about taking donations from terrorists, but the international argument seems relevant in my humble opinion to terrorists as well.)