A Poorly Disguised Question
Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Imagine a man, a registered sex
offender who first committed a crime as a young adult. He has been perpetually
indigent and unemployed due to his need to register, and has supported himself
through petty crime. He has also continued to reoffend, and is eventually
incarcerated (for life) as a repeat offender of felony sexual assault. By all
counts, he has not contributed to society, has in fact been a detriment to
society, and now will be the responsibility of a publicly supported system in
perpetuity.
While incarcerated, the man collapses, and becomes unresponsive. Per
examination, he is suffering from cerebral edema without clear etiology. Without
intervention, it will eventually be fatal. However, with simple surgery (a
drain), and supportive measures (airway, feeding tube, etc) he will not only
survive, but possibly recover. The process is expensive, labor intensive, but
essentially simple. While the interventions are being placed, the man enters a
moderately deep comatose state, and is only responsive to pain, but demonstrates
typical fetal reflexive responses (common in this sort of thing).
Upon awakening from his comatose state, the patient is initially incapable of
speech, or any of the daily activities he once was. Months of rehab are
required, as it is clear that he has suffered a globally hypoxic incident that
has left him with, to be colloquial, “brain damage.” In fact, the patient does
seem to have lost language skills, many basic learned motor skills, and in fact,
all autobiographical memories of any kind. However, rehab is very effective, the
patient has rapid reprogramming of language and skills, and begins forming new
memories of identity and personal narrative, though never appears to recall past
events. At this point, he is sent back to prison to complete his sentence.
From this scenario, I would ask:
Was it ethically necessary for the prison to intervene to save the man’s life?
Was the ever a moment when, as guardian and warden of the prisoner, either the
public or the prison could have called for a cessation of life sustaining
measures? What if, due to budgetary issues, it became profoundly burdensome to
support him? Could the man, in fact, be actively terminated with an intentional
overdose? Or, simply have had his tubes withdrawn until he perished?
Upon awakening, the man had no recall of the events that led to his
incarceration. Was he still guilty? Even assume that he is not being dishonest.
Is the perception of his guilt by others sufficient to establish that identity
still? What is it about identity that allows him to still be required to pay a
penalty for a crime that he does not recall in his personal narrative?"
Rapists should be put to death (Deut. 22:25)--the
"I slipped on a banana peel" defense notwithstanding.
