Let me preface this by stating that I don't want to start an "abortion" thread that devolves to pro/anti abortion rhetoric, as this post is about capital punishment and medical "ethics".

With that said.....

Medical personal and our society, or at least a percent of both, view abortion as "ethical'.  

Medical personal and our society, or at least a percent of both, view euthanization as "ethical".  There are currently criminal cases in LA where medical personal may have euthanized patients during the Katrina episode.  These Medical personal and others view what they did as "ethical".

Yet California can not find Medical personal who view the slight amount of pain that may be felt in capital punishment, or the use of drugs in lethal injection, or capital punishment in itself as "ethical".

Is there a problem with medical "ethics"?

There has to be one Doctor, somewhere, who views it as ethical and who will perform what is needed at the executions.

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CALIFORNIA_EXECUTION?SITE=PAPOT&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-02-22-20-18-11

Controversy May End Calif. Executions
By DAVID KRAVETS
Associated Press Writer
AP Photo/MARCIO JOSE SANCHEZ
 
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The state's postponement of an execution because no medical professional would take part amounts to a moratorium on capital punishment in California, home to the nation's largest death row, and could have implications for other states that use lethal injection.

Michael Morales, 46, was scheduled to die Tuesday by injection for torturing, raping and murdering a 17-year-old girl 25 years ago. But officials at San Quentin State Prison could not meet the demands of a federal judge who ordered licensed medical personnel to take part in the execution. Because of ethical considerations, there were no takers, and the execution was called off.

The reprieve meant California, with 650 condemned inmates, awoke Wednesday to what effectively was a moratorium on executions.

The case may eventually place the issue of lethal injection before the U.S. Supreme Court. Thirty-seven of the 38 states with capital punishment use a procedure similar to California's.
 
The high court has yet to weigh in on a question that inmates around the country have been raising in recent years: whether lethal injection is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual.

Last week's ruling in the Morales case by U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel shifted the debate subtly to whether licensed medical personnel should play an active role in an execution, something the American Medical Association and other medical groups have long opposed on ethical grounds.

"This is an issue that is ultimately going to have to be resolved by the Supreme Court," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. "Because you're ultimately not likely ever going to have doctors in the execution chamber."

In California and other states with lethal injection, licensed medical experts generally do not take part in the execution itself, other than to pronounce a prisoner dead. In California, the intravenous lines are inserted by prison staff trained specifically for that purpose. The drugs are then added by a machine.
 
Natasha Minsker, a capital punishment expert with the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the death penalty, said she believes a prison may be breaking the law by using executioners who do not have proper medical credentials.

"There are limits on practicing medicine with controlled substances," she said. "It appears prison personnel in this are breaking the law because they are not licensed to do this."

Fogel will hold hearings in May on whether California's method of execution is cruel and unusual punishment. Until that is resolved, neither Morales nor any other California death row inmate is likely to be executed unless licensed medical personnel step forward.

The next inmate in line, Mitchell Sims, 45, is on death row for killing a pizza delivery man in 1985. His final appeal rests with the U.S. Supreme Court. No execution date has been set.

California, like most states, carries out lethal injection with three separate drugs - one to relax them, another to paralyze them and a third to stop their hearts.

Morales' attorneys claimed that once a sedative is given the prisoner, he may feel excruciating pain if still conscious when the paralyzing agent is administered. The federal judge, in response, ordered a licensed anesthesiologist to be on hand to ensure that wouldn't happen.

In the alternative, the judge said the prison could use just a sedative to execute the inmate, but it would have to be injected by a licensed practitioner, a group that includes doctors, nurses, dentists, paramedics and other medical technicians.

But two anesthesiologists refused to take part in Morale's execution, citing ethical concerns. And the prison could not find a medical professional willing to administer the one-drug injection.

"I have no doubt that every inmate nearing execution will glom onto this," said Kent Scheidegger, director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a pro-capital punishment group. "But I can't imagine the Supreme Court requiring a state to do something that can't be done."

It's KOOKAFORNIA, what do you expect?

Perhaps they'd want to take part if it was their daughter who was raped and murdered. FUCK CALIFORNIA!

It it is "only" California doesn't matter, as it sets a precednt for every state that uses lethal injection.  

Euthanasia is totally unethical and those who participated in NOLA will go to prison if they did.

Abortion is accepted by most of the medical community as ethical. Something I have major problems with.

But docs should not be killing people. Are you sure that is something you want to start?
I am totally opposed to any of the situations that involve the taking of life.

Now I would have no problem putting a bullet in this POS but using my medical knowledge to kill him is something I wouldn't do. It may be a fine line but it is one I am not willing to cross.

i am so sick and tired of hearing about fucking california.

every other day they are trying to ban something, for no fucking reason......................

WTF?

someone walks off an execution, and everyone freaks............

When I first heard about the anastheasiologists(SP?) walking away from the execution, the statement was made that perhaps the inmate could be injected with something else.
I was hoping that someone would suggest injecting him with a bullet....but then I remebered that this is taking place in Kali

Is it too late to save Tookie??    

Quoted: Euthanasia is totally unethical and those who participated in NOLA will go to prison if they did. Abortion is accepted by most of the medical community as ethical. Something I have major problems with. But docs should not be killing people. Are you sure that is something you want to start? I am totally opposed to any of the situations that involve the taking of life. Now I would have no problem putting a bullet in this POS but using my medical knowledge to kill him is something I wouldn't do. It may be a fine line but it is one I am not willing to cross.

My question is what is the fine line that allows a person that performs an abortion to be ethical, while a person being on hand to ensure the criminal doesn't feel pain during execution to be unethical?

There is also a consideration of the medical personal not killing a person, but it being a state mandated execution. The medical personal is only providing a pain-free experience.

It doesn't need to be a doctor, it can be a paramedic.  

Quoted: Quoted: Euthanasia is totally unethical and those who participated in NOLA will go to prison if they did. Abortion is accepted by most of the medical community as ethical. Something I have major problems with. But docs should not be killing people. Are you sure that is something you want to start? I am totally opposed to any of the situations that involve the taking of life. Now I would have no problem putting a bullet in this POS but using my medical knowledge to kill him is something I wouldn't do. It may be a fine line but it is one I am not willing to cross. My question is what is the fine line that allows a person that performs an abortion to be ethical, while a person being on hand to ensure the criminal doesn't feel pain during execution to be unethical?

There is none. THAT IS WHAT I SAID.
In fact, the taking of a baby's life is far worse IMO.
That doesn't mean doctor's should be medically killing people.

There is also a consideration of the medical personal not killing a person, but it being a state mandated execution. The medical personal is only providing a pain-free experience. It doesn't need to be a doctor, it can be a paramedic.

I would be very cautious opening the Pandora's Box you advocate.
What they should do away with is lethal injection. Even though it is the most humane way devised yet, the ethical challenges lead me to question its use ultimately.  

time to bring back public hangings!

I don't get it.  You can kill a human out of convinence from conception to 6 month after conception but you can't kill a voilent POS that has murdered.

When I heard about this notion that the POS criminal might suffer somehow in the execution, I screamed FUCKING A!!!!!!!!!!!

It is supposed to hurt and then kill him.

If anybody needs any ideas, here are a few. Let's pour gasoline over his head and light it. Let's shoot him up the ass and let him bleed to death. Let's tie ropes to his feet and hands, and have two opposing horses pull him apart. Let's slowly decapitate him al Quieda style. Let's kill the motherfucker in the same sadistic way he killed the girl that he is now sentenced to die for.

Yeah, it is supposed to hurt. That's the point. Now kill the cocksucker and let the healing begin.

Quoted: Now I would have no problem putting a bullet in this POS but using my medical knowledge to kill him is something I wouldn't do. It may be a fine line but it is one I am not willing to cross.

An interesting conundrum, Doc. Thanks for your input on the situation.




It seems to me that a lot of the problem stems from society trying to sanitize and 'medicalize' (yes, I'm making words up now) the execution of the condemned. While I understand that folks had the best in mind by wanting to reduce chances for suffering, I think we should all remember that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

It used to be that you just needed a guard with some extra training to flip the switch on Ol' Sparky, and the only reason the Doc was there was to legally pronounce the condemned prisoner dead. Perhaps we should cut the middle medical man out and get back to that, eh?

Execution isn't a medical procedure, so let's not try to make it into one.

This, like most other California legal situations, has a simple answer.

Send an abortionist back in time to retroactively execute him.  Everybody's happy.

Damn, makes me want to go to medical school so I can volunteer......

This stinks!