Since 1977, when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized executions after a five-year pause, more than a thousand people have been killed. The messiness of hanging, firing squads, electrocution and gas has limited the use of those methods, leaving lethal injection as the only acceptable option.
To be certain that this method is used satisfactorily, some courts or legislatures have decided that physicians must be available to assure proper procedure: that the intravenous lines are in place, that the correct doses of appropriate drugs are given and that the prisoner is actually dead. Thus, executions have become increasingly "medicalized."
In April 2006, a group of us doctors wrote to the N.C. Medical Board pointing out that state law required physicians be "present" at executions but that, in reality, physicians were almost always "participating" in executions, taking actions contrary to AMA ethical guidelines as well as to the oath of Hippocrates that physicians take upon graduation from medical school: "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect."
The N.C. Medical Board subsequently adopted a policy in January 2007 stating that "any physician who engages in any verbal or physical activity that facilitates the execution may be subject to disciplinary action by this Board." This effectively halted executions (none has been conducted in North Carolina since Aug. 18, 2006) and has resulted in the current case before the state Supreme Court. The court is being asked to decide whether the Medical Board can prevent doctors from participating in executions.
IT IS IRONIC THAT SO LITTLE EFFORT ON THE PART OF A FEW PHYSICIANS could throw a moral monkey wrench into the machinery of death created by legislators and the courts. Life is rather simple for physicians. We don't worry about whether someone is a Jew or a Muslim, an illegal alien or a murderer, whether he has insurance or not. We simply take care of that person in front of us the best way we can, given the resources available. And we do not kill our patients.
North Carolinians should be concerned about executions in our state not only because they have been forcing physicians to participate, but because of other reasons, too.
Since 1977, 130 people nationwide have been freed from death row after having been falsely accused, prosecuted and convicted (eight in North Carolina). Governor Easley and state Attorney General Roy Cooper are tough on law and order despite evidence that some convictions were wrongly obtained by crooked or incompetent prosecutors.
Bias plays a major role in determining who gets sentenced to death. If a victim is white, there is a 3.5 times greater likelihood that the defendant will be sentenced to death.
Finally, a death penalty case costs taxpayers 10 times that of a case involving life in prison without parole.
Elected officials and judges have decided that it is less messy for them to have anonymous doctors carry out their dirty work, not dissimilar to how others have created systematic and orderly mechanisms of death in other places and other times.
Let them get this message: We do not kill to fulfill the state's business. They have their paradox; they need to deal with it.
The Constitution says that we must not let prisoners suffer "cruel and unusual" punishment and so the state decides physicians would help it kill in a constitutional manner. Forget it; we aren't going to help anybody out of this one.
Source: News & Observer, December 5, 2008
To be certain that this method is used satisfactorily, some courts or legislatures have decided that physicians must be available to assure proper procedure: that the intravenous lines are in place, that the correct doses of appropriate drugs are given and that the prisoner is actually dead. Thus, executions have become increasingly "medicalized."
In April 2006, a group of us doctors wrote to the N.C. Medical Board pointing out that state law required physicians be "present" at executions but that, in reality, physicians were almost always "participating" in executions, taking actions contrary to AMA ethical guidelines as well as to the oath of Hippocrates that physicians take upon graduation from medical school: "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect."
The N.C. Medical Board subsequently adopted a policy in January 2007 stating that "any physician who engages in any verbal or physical activity that facilitates the execution may be subject to disciplinary action by this Board." This effectively halted executions (none has been conducted in North Carolina since Aug. 18, 2006) and has resulted in the current case before the state Supreme Court. The court is being asked to decide whether the Medical Board can prevent doctors from participating in executions.
IT IS IRONIC THAT SO LITTLE EFFORT ON THE PART OF A FEW PHYSICIANS could throw a moral monkey wrench into the machinery of death created by legislators and the courts. Life is rather simple for physicians. We don't worry about whether someone is a Jew or a Muslim, an illegal alien or a murderer, whether he has insurance or not. We simply take care of that person in front of us the best way we can, given the resources available. And we do not kill our patients.
North Carolinians should be concerned about executions in our state not only because they have been forcing physicians to participate, but because of other reasons, too.
Since 1977, 130 people nationwide have been freed from death row after having been falsely accused, prosecuted and convicted (eight in North Carolina). Governor Easley and state Attorney General Roy Cooper are tough on law and order despite evidence that some convictions were wrongly obtained by crooked or incompetent prosecutors.
Bias plays a major role in determining who gets sentenced to death. If a victim is white, there is a 3.5 times greater likelihood that the defendant will be sentenced to death.
Finally, a death penalty case costs taxpayers 10 times that of a case involving life in prison without parole.
Elected officials and judges have decided that it is less messy for them to have anonymous doctors carry out their dirty work, not dissimilar to how others have created systematic and orderly mechanisms of death in other places and other times.
Let them get this message: We do not kill to fulfill the state's business. They have their paradox; they need to deal with it.
The Constitution says that we must not let prisoners suffer "cruel and unusual" punishment and so the state decides physicians would help it kill in a constitutional manner. Forget it; we aren't going to help anybody out of this one.
Source: News & Observer, December 5, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment