Another angle on the lethal injection question
Last week we posted about the current legal proceedings over the constitutionality of lethal injection. On Sunday the LA Times reported on a related situation in North Carolina, where the state medical board in a legal fight over whether it has the authority to bar doctors from taking part in executions (state law requires a doctor be present). From the article:
There has been considerable debate about whether doctors should be present during lethal injections, a conflict sometimes described by doctors as "The Hippocratic Paradox." On one hand, doctors may be needed to carry out a lethal injection execution so that it is consistent with 8th Amendment prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. But others say the Hippocratic oath to preserve life rules out their involvement.
A state court judge ruled in March that the medical board didn't have the authority to keep doctors from participating and the board appealed the decision last week. That March ruling included an assertion by the judge that executions are not a "medical procedure or event." The LA Times asked Art Caplan and Ross McKinney about that statement:
The judge's decision "is patently wrong on its face," said Arthur Caplan, chairman of the medical ethics department at the University of Pennsylvania Medical School.
The reason that prison officials want doctors present at executions is "for their medical expertise," Caplan said.
Dr. Ross McKinney Jr., director of the Trent Center for Bioethics, Humanities and History of Medicine at Duke University, said that the intravenous administration of drugs clearly has the trappings of a medical procedure. "It is hard for me to imagine someone saying that a doctor being there and contributing to someone's death is not a medical procedure that violates the Hippocratic oath," he said.
"On the other hand," he said, "I can understand a physician saying the death penalty was justified for some people, thinking lethal injection is more humane than other forms of execution and therefore be willing to participate. . . . To some degree it becomes a political decision, and it gets wrapped up in the entire debate over the death penalty."
contribute a comment
Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.
comments
I believe the decision is more of a moral or political decision. If a person has done something bad enough to deserve the death penalty, I don't know why we are worried about sparing them a little pain. However, to stay consistent with the 8th Amendment, a doctor that does not have any moral or political issues with the procedure should still be required to oversee the event and make sure everything goes smoothly.
- by Cary on Oct 22, 2007 at 10:48 AM | link
What is "patently wrong on its face" with the claim that an execution is not a medical procedure or event? At least some people (occasionally, even Art Caplan) have suggested that the "end in view" of an acitivity is relevant to whehter it's properly viewed as "medical." I think it's more accurate to criticize physician involvement in executions on the grounds that docs are using their "special" knowledge to further ends that conflict with the ends of medicine.
- by bob koepp on Oct 22, 2007 at 11:28 AM | link