Why Do Physicians Participate In Capital Punishment?

Science has played a role in the debate over the death penalty for some time. One question concerning science and the death penalty include, questioning the ethical appeal of using executed bodies for anatomical research. People can understand the benefit of doing so since the bodies are “fresh” and they allow researchers more control of their subjects, since they know how the person died, when the person died, and the exact time of death; etc. but the concern is encompassed around the consent and knowledge of the criminal about how their bodies will be used after their execution. Another issue is the people who administer lethal injections are rarely properly qualified due to many physicians refusing to participate in the executions. Anatomists have been using the bodies of executed criminals for years, but there is a need for an ethical law code regarding where and how anatomists acquire bodies. (HILDEBRANDT) This is because some people question using executed criminals for research since they are usually not asked or aware of the potential use of their bodies after death.

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

Capital Punishment has been used in the United States justice system for many years now, yet one must question whether or not it should be used at all. This paper will look at the Deontological views of capital punishment through the works of Kant’s categorical imperative. Arguments such as the unethical misuse of medical practice by physicians, who swear an oath to do everything in their power to save the lives of the people they care for, while using their expertise on an individual for an execution. Another argument that can be made would be the understanding just what the role of both race and religion may play in making this particular moral issue and question if individuals have a “right to life” and its effect on future execution

As stated in the Tyson’s 2001 article, The Hippocratic Oath Today, the Hippocratic Oath is one of the oldest binding documents in history who’s principles are held sacred by doctors that states to treat the sick to the best of one's ability, preserve patient privacy and so on (Tyson, 2001). Ensuring the welfare of a person is their main priority and there should not ever be a debate of weather the health of a human being comes first. Yes, the prisoner committed a heinous crime of killing a 19-years- girl, but regardless of the severity of his crime; you must see the malpractice in the medical provider authorizing his medical treatment under false pretenses. The medical provider is exhibiting medication not for the wellness of the patients, but for his or her death. "Medicine is supposed to heal people, not prepare them for execution,” words from by David Kaczynski, the executive director of New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty (Kacyzynski, 2011). The bottom line is that without the drugs, the prisoner could not be put to death, making the medical provider an unintended murderer. This leaves those physiatrist doctors who are treating psychotic condemned prisoners in an untenable position where treating the prisoner may provide short-term relief but ultimately result in his

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.

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.

The use of capital punishment in the U.S. is a growing concern for most American citizens. According to statistics, seventy percent of Americans are in support of the death penalty, while only thirty percent are against it. These statistics show that few people are against capital punishment (“Fact” 1). With the use of the death penalty growing the controversy is becoming more heated. With only twelve states left not enforcing it the resistance is becoming futile (“Fact” 4). Many debates have been made and even clauses have been invoked, such as, the “Cruel and Unusual Clause” that was invoked by the Supreme Court in 1962 (Meltsner 179). The use of death as a punishment has been viewed as “cruel

It is the conclusion of Marcia Angell from the Supreme Court and Physician-Assisted Suicide in article #1 that a physician’s main duties are to respect a patient’s autonomy and relieve suffering. She believes even if this means assisting in a patient’s death. Her conclusion is based on several pretenses. First, the premise is the most ethical in medicine the respect for each patient’s autonomy. If this principle conflicts with others, it should always take precedence. She argues that sometimes physician’s need the option regarding hastening death, although this should be considered as a last resort. She considers that death is different for all and can be fast and peaceful or slow and cruel. She argues that death if withdrawing life-sustaining treatment simply allows the disease to take its course (Kaebnick, 2001). Three methods of hastening death are: withdrawing treatment to sustain life, assisting suicide, and euthanasia. Her concern about this is this is less patient-centered thinking and more physician centered? She further hopes that it will become a choice for those patients who need

The prohibition against killing patients stands as the first promise of self-restraint sworn to in the Hippocratic Oath, as medicine's primary interdict: 'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect' In renouncing the giving of lethal drugs when asked for it, the Hippocratic physician rejects the view that the patient's choice for death can make killing him right.

Texas was the first state to use lethal injection for execution in 1982. Fast forward 33 years, the topic of medical professions participating is an intense debatable topic. There have been multiple attempts of execution that have failed terribly; however not all of the mishandled executions were due to the lethal injection, but also electrocution and asphyxiation. The moral question here is though, as a role in the medical profession who is dedicated in preserving life when there is hope, should they or should they not participate in an execution? Although it is necessary for doctors to check on people physically and mentally, it is not necessary for them to carry out the execution.

Metzner & Fellner (2010) stated, “Physicians are ethically obligated to refrain from countenancing, condoning, participating in, and facilitating torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment” (p.106). Physicians are discouraged from participating in interrogations and executions of convicted offenders. There has been several botched executions in the United States and “courts in some states have ruled that a doctor must be present during the execution to monitor the condemned for signs of pain. The American Medical Association states that physicians who take part in executions violate medical

It is obvious discussing physician-assisted suicide is a very controversial issue that is discussed daily by those who wish to die to avoid loss of dignity and also by those who think it is unethical. For physician-assisted suicide to even be considered, the patient must be of sound mind when they are requesting death with dignity. Physician-assisted suicide should be a legal option for people who are unable to end their own lives. However, there should be safeguards to prevent any sort of abuse. There should be the legalization of physician-assisted suicide, but not for active euthanasia. “It should never be contemplated as a substitute for comprehensive comfort care or for working with patients to resolve the physical, personal, and social challenges posed by the process of dying” (Meier, D.E., p. 294). If an incurable patient who is suffering asks for specific help in physician-assisted suicide, physicians should have the obligation to fully scrutinize the request. Not only is it the seriousness of considering medicine as the placement of certain suicide an issue, it is a form of direct killing. Medical advances are surely making it easier to reduce pain and suffering, so why should there be policies devised and sanctioned by the state to kill those in pain and suffering?

This means that the physician is enabling the patient by providing and/or educating them on the necessary paraphernalia in order to end their life. For example, this could consist of the physician teaching the patient of the correct lethal dosage of a pharmaceutical that he or she is prescribed. A physician’s profession is to serve as a healer to their patients, not to aid in their death. It is in opposition to physicians Hippocratic Oath to participate in such a homicidal and vicious

The role of a physician participating in an execution does not actually consist of injecting the prisoner with the lethal dose of medications. The role for a physicians during an execution is to: start an intravenous line, maintain the intravenous line, and to overall prevent any medical mistakes that could cause pain to the prisoners. In recent times, it is prohibited for physicians to participate in executions due to the American Medical Association. Physicians are able to attend these executions but they are to have very limited input. For the physicians that do go against the AMA and have some type of role in an execution always wish to remain anonymous.

Imagine you are injured or sick and have sought a doctor’s help. Although you trusted your doctor, something, something seemingly very in control of the doctor, went wrong. You are angry and confused, but also think of the commonality of medical malpractice. So, why do doctors, who are supposed to help, harm? Though many flaws influence it, malpractice can be, and often is unintentional. Most doctors aren’t trained to harm their patients. Inexperience and lack of medical discovery led to unintentional suffering of the patient. Personal flaws, like lack of willingness to abandon previous medical methods and shortcomings in communication also harm patients. Further reasons why doctors harm are socio-medical understandings that breed hate, prejudices stemming from a society’s belief about certain people, such as the medical practice under the Nazi regime. Additionally, displayed in the case of Ignác Semmelweis, judgement of one to oneself can be detrimental to any progress one’s ideas could make. We will examine these concepts through Jerome Groopman’s “Flesh-and-Blood Decision Making”, Sherwin Nuland’s The Doctors’ Plague and Barbara Bachrach’s “In the Name of Public Health”. Those who practice medicine are, unfortunately, unfree from the imperfections that plague all of humanity. Through these intimate and varied faults, doctors do harm.