On Kevorkian, Vivisection and Beneficent Execution
In: Death, Dying, Culture: An Interdisciplinary InterrogationSearch for other papers by Lloyd Steffen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
This chapter inquires into the way in which medical practice can be affected by a larger culture that seeks to solve problems through the use of violence. In a book written over 50 years ago, Medical Research and the Death Penalty, Dr Jack Kevorkian advocated vivisection on condemned prisoners whose donations to medical research (and organs for transplant) on the surgeon’s table would serve as the occasion of state sponsored execution. This chapter will expand on Kevorkian’s advocacy of vivisection-execution to raise two questions. First, can extracting from execution the benefits of research results or a supply of organs for transplantation transform execution so that it makes sense to speak of the condemned’s death as a ‘good death’ due to good consequences? Secondly, since Kevorkian did not challenge the morality of the execution practice but accepted its legitimacy as a given, what is the consequence of evading the moral challenge attached to an execution death? This chapter will point to problems with a utilitarian ethic that justifies such a scheme as Kevorkian proposed, then focus on the moral meaning of execution punishment. The argument will be made that the death resulting from punishment – a ‘punishment death’ – cannot serve as a means to rectify the imbalance sought by retributivists and, further, that attaining such a death actually fails to serve the purpose of just punishment in general.