Why Do Doctors Participate In Executions?

Medical practitioners traditionally do not inject the criminal with the cocktail used in lethal injections. They are typically done by others outside the medical profession, which could potentially lead to botched

In “Get it Right: Privatize Executions” Arthur Miller compares executions to a sports event in a rather mocking tone. I believe that the shocking and somewhat sarcastic statements made about seat prices and sport rituals purpose is to convict the readers and make us think. Would people truly want to gather in an arena or in their homes with popcorn in hand to watch an execution? Could we really be as barbaric as the gladiators? I did some research on this and the unfortunate answer is yes. What I find perplexing is not that people think murders should be executed, but that so many relatives as well as people unaffected by the criminal, would actually want to spectate the

Worded perfectly by The Scientific American, a magazine analyzing controversial issues in America said, “About two thirds of the states use a combination of barbituric, paralytic and toxic agents for executions, despite a lack of scientific evidence supporting their effectiveness.” The procedure is still subject to FDA approval, the agency has avoided questions ruling on the mixtures efficacy in “delivering a merciful death” (citation). This brings to light a harsh topic: is lethal injection truly cruel and unusual? Human Rights Watch is an international non government aided organization dedicated to protecting and establishing the appearance of human rights around the world. The report the HRW released, “So Long as They Die: Lethal Injection in the United States” (citation) The report highlighted a fact not a lot of people consider, “Prisoners in the United States are executed by means that the American Veterinary Medical Association regards as too cruel to use on cats and dogs.” A lot of the civilians who simply only read about death

Richard Doerflinger is the first author and is against physician-assisted suicide. In his article he starts by saying that killing an innocent person is against the Jewish and Christian worldviews. He argues that those in favor of assisted suicide put less, if no, value on human life. He quoted an advocate of assisted suicide, Attorney Robert Risley, who stated that a life of suffering “racked with pain,” is “not the kind of life we cherish.” Roerflinger says that advocates argue for a pro-choice look at the issue instead of what should be viewed as a claim that some lives are not worth living. He also argues that assisted suicide is not a case of ensuring one’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It is instead the exact opposite because life is fundamental to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Roerflinger continues to state claims from advocates of assisted suicide. He states that they defend their side by saying “we do not encourage suicide for any reason except to relieve unremitting suffering.” Roerflinger argues that with this claim, liberty and freedom of choice loses its value if one’s choice cannot relieve suffering or lead to happiness. He argues that the advocate’s claim of “pro-choice” is not inconsistent here. He says their highest priority seems to the pursuit of happiness rather than freedom of choice. Roerflinger explains that the advocates are ultimately saying; if one has an inability to pursue happiness

Before convicts are executed, it is a requirement by the law that they be treated to ensure that they are not only physically fit but also healthy. I am convinced that all types of prescription are ought to cure people, not readying them to experience death through statutory execution, whether one is on death row or not. It is the duty of every doctor under the law to ensure that each convict is healthy before the government can deprive his or her life. The law is unethical since it does not recognize that the duties of physicians are to render support to the people, save individuals’ lives as well as help individuals enhance the standard of their lives. When physicians graduate from their processional training, they vow on oath to assist in

People like to feel as if their loved ones are protected by doctors, they do not want to think of the doctors as murderers. Should a doctor be considered a murderer if they are just fulfilling a patients request? Sometimes doctors are unable to convince a determined patient of any other options, which may lead to them fulfilling the patient’s requests. Is it right for a person to see the doctor as a murderer if they are giving the patient what they want? Just because a doctor try’s to give a patient what they want, does that make him wrong? Many may say that doctors should not have consequences because they are helping a patient out of his pain and agony. What a lot of people do not consider is how is physician-assisted suicide any different than a doctor taking someone off of life support or a physician respecting a person’s DNR and not resuscitating them? When a doctor respects the family’s request and removes a person off of life support they do not receive

Although lethal injections and juvenile criminals seem unrelated topics, they both deal with problems in the criminal justice system. The titles are “Should Juvenile Criminals Be Sentenced Like Adults?” by Abigail Pesta. Pesta is an award-winning journalist and an author; she was also a graduate from the University of Notre Dame. “Lethal Injection for Execution: Chemical Asphyxiation?” by Teresa A. Zimmerman, Jonathan Sheldon, David A. Lubarsky, Francisco Lopez-Munoz, Linda Waterman, Richard Weisman, and Leonidas G. Koniaris. These writers graduated from the University of Miami. However, all were medical majors, but in different areas. In Pesta’s article she tells the story about a young man named Sean, who spent time behind bars in Riker’s Island, NY. In this article the authors gave specific information about the effects of lethal injections and whether if they act as intended or not. The audience for both is the public, justice system, and people in the medical field. The purpose of the first article is to inform the audience on someone’s perspective behind bars and how it affected them. Also, this article was thesis driven. Then the second article’s purpose is to show how unreliable lethal injections. The format of this article is IMRAD. These two articles show us how the justice system is flawed.

Moral behavior of a murderer is considered lacking in many cases, but how are physicians who administer a lethal dosage of drugs any different? There are many physicians who are participating in assisted suicide, but they all have lives within their hands. They are responsible for the lives they have been entrusted with. In Norway any physician that helped with assisted suicide was charged with “accessory to murder.” In the United States there are many laws regarding murder, but accessory to murder is also a charge. A person who is considered an accessory to murder is “not typically present at the scene of the crime, but contributes to the success of the crime before or after the fact.” This statement creates a controversial wave within the country. Those physicians who are prescribing deadly doses of medication are knowingly providing a means to kill someone. Even though the physician does not administer the drugs themselves, the patient is still being killed because of the physician’s prescription.

(“Should Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal?”). Basically what it say is that patients should not be press by their families to choose physician assisted suicide. Therefore, patines shouldn’t tell their family how they want to die. If they choose physician assisted suicide they should keep it to their self or tell someone they trust and press them to do nothing. Physician assisted suicide should be legalized because it’s not harmful. But it should be controlled and not take advantage of it. Most of the ill patines have gone to court and argue that they don’t have the strength to “suicide” them self, for example, “In the U.S. Supreme Court case Vacco v. Quill, doctors argued that while a competent person has the right to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment, another competent patient does not have the right to seek assistance to kill himself.” ( “The Debate Over Physician-Assisted Suicide”). Basically what this is debate is saying, is that most ill patients don’t want to “kill” them self. Therefore, most of the patines should really make a good decide of how they going to take their last breath. Another article say that “ill people are arguing that they are

Their personal beliefs should not be forced onto those who are terminally ill. Their personal views and beliefs should not be a factor in the decision these people choose to make. Doctor Hunnell discusses how medical journals are beginning to support physician-assisted suicide to a greater degree (2012). While there are many doctors who are in favor of physician-assisted suicide, there are still those who believe it goes against a doctor’s ethical duty.

In the article “Safeguards Can Prevent the Abuse of Physician-Assisted Suicide” by Sherwin Nuland, the author describes the encounter with an oncologist who assisted 25 patients in PAS. He remembers hearing the backlash the physician received and sat quietly knowing he helped his patients do the same. It is done for patients who have already established a well relationship with their doctor and know that death is the only relief they can get. The author describes it as an act of murder instead of murder. Most people argue that if they allow euthanasia to be used for legal purposes, the criteria for which a patient is a “good candidate” can become less rigid as time goes on. The author states, “Once we permit active euthanasia, where will it take us? Will the rigid criteria loosen? Will we end up turning a blind eye to things that in the present debate we might consider morally questionable?” (124). Physicians fear that sooner or later, the same euthanasia used for a 70-year-old patient with an inoperable brain tumor will be used for a 50 year old patient who has been having major depressive episodes for a number of

People become doctors in order to save lives, so it could potentially be hard for them to agree if someone comes to them asking to be killed. The hippocratic oath was an oath that has been revised and edited for centuries in order to fit with modern medicine. Before the editing of the oath many common procedures and practices would have been unethical. While many physicians have left the old oath in the past there are some doctors and lawmakers who still hold on to the old values of the Hippocratic oath which has strict rules against abortions and other procedures also prescribing lethal doses of drugs.(www.pbs.org) Other than the oath the physician also has a personal opinion and that will play a factor in rather or not they decide to assist the patient.

This line directly refutes the idea of a doctor assisting in the suicide of another living being. By promoting physician-assisted suicide, doctors invalidate their pledge to be the best healer they possibly can. This, in essence, ruins their credibility and their reputation as a physician. The opposition to this idea states that the no harm claim within the Hippocratic Oath allows for a doctor to end a patient’s life if they are suffering. They claim that it is more harmful to the patient to suffer the pain and agony of a terminal illness than for doctors to assist in the death of their patient (Humphry). The problem lies with the definition of no harm. Hippocrates intended for doctors to heal their patients, not kill them. The Hippocratic Oath is clear when it states that no lethal drugs or other methods of assisted suicide should be practiced (“Greek Medicine”). Ignoring these principles goes against the Hippocratic Oath, degrading a doctor’s credibility and character. Not only does physician-assisted suicide discredit a doctor, but it is not constitutionally sound.

The direct arguments in physicians-assisted suicide state that under no circumstances is the killing of another human being justified. Life is precious no matter how low the quality is and, should be valued at all times.

According to Wente (2015) in the article “should doctors be allowed to kill?” the author argues that the legalization of euthanasia and right-to-die legislation could have negative effects. Firstly, people who don’t want to live or are tired of living, could ask for the shot. In other words, the legislation, instead for being for people going through untreatable or unbearable diseases and/or illnesses, it will be available for anyone who wants an easy way out. Secondly, it will be a waste of the years of studying done by doctors. Doctors would be taking more lives than saving them---opposite of what they learn in med school. Finally, someone else should perform the killing instead of doctors because doctors