Doctors halt 'painless' execution
Earl Evleth
direction. Any comment from PV our principle anti-ethicalist?
****
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/america
s/4734908.stm
Doctors halt 'painless' execution
The execution of a convicted murderer has been delayed in the US after
doctors refused to participate because of ethical concerns.
Michael Morales was set to become the first inmate to be put to death by
lethal injection in California under a procedure that aims to minimise pain.
But the two court-ordered doctors withdrew, citing concerns over a
last-minute ruling by a judge.
Morales, 46, was convicted for the rape and murder of a teenage girl in
1981.
Prison officials at San Quentin prison announced the postponement of the
execution more than two hours after it had been due to take place, citing
serious differences of opinion with the two anaesthesiologists.
The doctors were concerned about an opinion expressed by a Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals judge on Monday which required them to intervene in the
event that Morales woke up or appeared to be in pain.
"Any such intervention would be medically unethical. As a result, we have
withdrawn from participation in this current process... What is being asked
of us is ethically unacceptable," the doctors said in a statement.
Prison officials have rescheduled the execution for 1930 (0330 GMT on
Wednesday) and said they would use a different type of lethal injection.
They now plan to use a fatal dose of barbiturate instead of the three-drug
cocktail typically used for executions.
The decision to have anaesthesiologists present was made after lawyers for
Morales had successfully argued that he would suffer extreme pain because of
the mix of drugs in the three-part injection.
US METHODS OF EXECUTION
Lethal injection: Authorised in 37 states
Electrocution: In 10 states (sole method in Nebraska)
Gas chamber: In five states (all of which have lethal injection as
alternative)
Hanging: Only in New Hampshire and Washington
Firing squad: In Idaho and Oklahoma
Source: DPIC
They argued that the lethal cocktail violated the Eighth Amendment
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
The American Medical Association, the American Society of
Anaesthesiologists and the California Medical Association have opposed the
anaesthesiologist's participation as unethical.
Morales was sentenced to death for killing 17-year-old Terri Winchell in
1981.
He admitted the crime, but claimed he was high on drugs and alcohol.
John Rennie
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:C020DA69.974D8%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
This three drug cocktail nonsense does seem to be over complicated.
Our Doctor Shipman lethally 'executed' over 250 of his patients with far
less bother.
Earl Evleth
Rennie" <jo...@rennie69.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> This three drug cocktail nonsense does seem to be over complicated.
> Our Doctor Shipman lethally 'executed' over 250 of his patients with far
> less bother.
In doing so he did not follow the Hippocratic Oath. Whatever oath doctors
take or are implied to have taken in becoming doctors, certainly follow
the general princople that
"I will follow that method of treatment which according to my ability and
judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever
is harmful or mischievous."
This does not exclude putting a patient to death, but a person about
to be executed is not a patient. That is where the ethical problem
arises.
The same kind of problem occurs when doctors are used by the state
for purposes of the state. Thus helping devise "stress" techniques
for prisoner interrogations also presents an ethnical problem.
-
*****
The Hippocratic Oath
(A Modern Version)
I swear in the presence of the Almighty and before my family, my teachers
and my peers that according to my ability and judgment I will keep this Oath
and Stipulation.
To reckon all who have taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents
and in the same spirit and dedication to impart a knowledge of the art of
medicine to others. I will continue with diligence to keep abreast of
advances in medicine. I will treat without exception all who seek my
ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised
thereby, and I will seek the counsel of particularly skilled physicians
where indicated for the benefit of my patient.
I will follow that method of treatment which according to my ability and
judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever
is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal
dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor
perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to
natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human
life.
With purity, holiness and beneficence I will pass my life and practice my
art. Except for the prudent correction of an imminent danger, I will neither
treat any patient nor carry out any research on any human being without the
valid informed consent of the subject or the appropriate legal protector
thereof, understanding that research must have as its purpose the
furtherance of the health of that individual. Into whatever patient setting
I enter, I will go for the benefit of the sick and will abstain from every
voluntary act of mischief or corruption and further from the seduction of
any patient.
Whatever in connection with my professional practice or not in connection
with it I may see or hear in the lives of my patients which ought not be
spoken abroad, I will not divulge, reckoning that all such should be kept
secret.
While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated may it be granted to me to
enjoy life and the practice of the art and science of medicine with the
blessing of the Almighty and respected by my peers and society, but should I
trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot.
John Rennie
> On 21/02/06 15:15, in article dtf7a6$n8q$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk, "John
> Rennie" <jo...@rennie69.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> This three drug cocktail nonsense does seem to be over complicated.
>> Our Doctor Shipman lethally 'executed' over 250 of his patients with far
>> less bother.
>
> In doing so he did not follow the Hippocratic Oath.
Well I never. Earl, you are a Master in the art of the bleedin'
obvious.
Earl Evleth
Rennie" <jo...@rennie69.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> In doing so he did not follow the Hippocratic Oath.
>
> Well I never. Earl, you are a Master in the art of the bleedin'
> obvious.
Just "uncontrasting" that situation with the expectations of the pro-DP
group who expect the doctors to follow the orders of the state
and lend aid in the execution. It is one and the same.
David Haley
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
--
David C. Haley
david-...@the-haleys.com
(no unmunging necessary)
Earl Evleth
<david-...@the-haleys.org> wrote:
>> Just "uncontrasting" that situation with the expectations of the pro-DP
>> group who expect the doctors to follow the orders of the state
>> and lend aid in the execution. It is one and the same.
>
> I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
>
> --
Not well written on my part.
The medical profession is suppose to work for the well being of the people
they treat. Over the interests of the state or the ruling legal authority.
It should not compromise is moral integrity in moral shadows.
It is obvious in the case of a doctor who takes it on himself to kill
his patients for reasons which are vague, the "angel of death"
syndrome of putting many very ill people out of their supposed misery.
It is less clear with doctors who serve the state. After all, a
psychiatrist might be expected to inform the authorities if he
feels his patient will kill another person. Indeed, I see nothing
wrong with doing that since the death of an innocent person would
be involved. But I don't see doctors playing a role in devising
the best methods of torture or putting people to death. In this
case they are guilty of the same kind of professional sin as
a doctor who kills hundreds.
Some pro-DP supporters will see nothing wrong with a doctor pushing
the button which sends a series of death causing chemicals into
the body of a living person who is not in a physical condition to die.
The magnitude of the sin is not as great as Mengelé's, the direction is
the same however.
John Rennie
Well David, have you worked out what Earl is trying to say?
I was merely pointing out that Shipman with his diamorphine
was far more efficient with very quick painless killings than
the State of California appears to be. His method has the
additional benefit of being well tested.
David Haley
I'm afraid to say that I'm still a little confused.
> I was merely pointing out that Shipman with his diamorphine
> was far more efficient with very quick painless killings than
> the State of California appears to be. His method has the
> additional benefit of being well tested.
It would appear so, yes. But frankly, medically speaking, the most painless
death is probably an extremely clean beheading. One doesn't have to be dramatic
about it with a guillotine etc., what I refer to is the severance of the spinal
cord. It's incredibly gruesome, but again, medically speaking, if the convict is
unconscious... all this to say that I think that for many people, they don't
want to "hurt" the convict more for their own sakes than for the convict's.
mister...@hotmail.com
says...
appalling, although it is merely symptomatic of the wider hypocrisy
practised in the US on so many issues. It's an extension of the concept
of the punishing father, who says to his errant child "this is going to
hurt me more than you" before beating the crap out of him with a belt.
The same people who piously stand up in church and sing "Nearer my God
to Thee" are quite happy to have someone else killed, as long as they
don't have to watch any nastiness. The poor bloody prisoner just wants
it over as quick as possible when it comes right down to it and any
number of methods will achieve that.
--
Cheers,
Craig
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
"John Rennie" <jo...@rennie69.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
I think that your post sailed, unhindered, straight over his head. I
honestly believe that Earl imagined, just for a moment, that the UK
practiced execution by lethal injection and you were referring to just
that.
--
Mr Q. Z. D.
Remove luncheonmeat (truncheon) to reply.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
David Haley <david-...@the-haleys.org> wrote:
> On this day of 2-21-2006 7:57 AM, Earl Evleth saw fit to scribe:
> > On 21/02/06 15:44, in article dtf8vu$qvp$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk, "John
> > Rennie" <jo...@rennie69.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>> In doing so he did not follow the Hippocratic Oath.
> >> Well I never. Earl, you are a Master in the art of the bleedin'
> >> obvious.
> >
> >
> > Just "uncontrasting" that situation with the expectations of the pro-DP
> > group who expect the doctors to follow the orders of the state
> > and lend aid in the execution. It is one and the same.
>
> I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Nor does Earl.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
David Haley <david-...@the-haleys.org> wrote:
> It would appear so, yes. But frankly, medically speaking, the most painless
> death is probably an extremely clean beheading.
Possibly not so:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_262.html
> One doesn't have to be
> dramatic
> about it with a guillotine etc., what I refer to is the severance of the
> spinal
> cord. It's incredibly gruesome, but again, medically speaking, if the convict
> is
> unconscious... all this to say that I think that for many people, they don't
> want to "hurt" the convict more for their own sakes than for the convict's.
You are correct.
Just to clarify, though, the most painless death would be immediate
annihilation of the brain. Rifle calibre rounds to the head would do
just that. Even more gruesome (and tricky to clean up) but definitely
more humane.
John Rennie
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <satan.not...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:satan.notinnedmeat-7F9BE5.07130422022006@localhost...
There we go. The NKVD killed humanely in the Lubianka. I knew
if one waited long enough one could find something nice to say about
them.
David Haley
> In article <dtfo8r$bjp$1...@news.Stanford.EDU>,
> David Haley <david-...@the-haleys.org> wrote:
>
>> It would appear so, yes. But frankly, medically speaking, the most painless
>> death is probably an extremely clean beheading.
>
> Possibly not so:
>
> http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_262.html
Interesting read, if somewhat anecdotal.
>> One doesn't have to be
>> dramatic
>> about it with a guillotine etc., what I refer to is the severance of the
>> spinal
>> cord. It's incredibly gruesome, but again, medically speaking, if the convict
>> is
>> unconscious... all this to say that I think that for many people, they don't
>> want to "hurt" the convict more for their own sakes than for the convict's.
>
> You are correct.
>
> Just to clarify, though, the most painless death would be immediate
> annihilation of the brain. Rifle calibre rounds to the head would do
> just that. Even more gruesome (and tricky to clean up) but definitely
> more humane.
There you go. Kind of brings to mind disintegrating guns from sci-fi movies.
Those would perhaps be the least painful. :-)
Planet Visitor II
> On this day of 2-21-2006 7:57 AM, Earl Evleth saw fit to scribe:
>> On 21/02/06 15:44, in article dtf8vu$qvp$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk, "John
>> Rennie" <jo...@rennie69.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> In doing so he did not follow the Hippocratic Oath.
>>> Well I never. Earl, you are a Master in the art of the bleedin'
>>> obvious.
>>
>>
>> Just "uncontrasting" that situation with the expectations of the pro-DP
>> group who expect the doctors to follow the orders of the state
>> and lend aid in the execution. It is one and the same.
>
> I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
>
medicine why on earth would the state not be qualified to issue
such orders to state-licensed physicians? Seriously, what is at
issue here is the separation of personal ethics and state ethics,
and hinges even on the separation of church and state, since all
"ethical" STATE issues are resolved through the issuing of a license
to practice medicine in that state.
I am not saying that people must follow the orders of the state in
respect to having to abandon their "ethical" principles which are
certainly welcome to be found personally superior to that of the state.
But they cannot then expect the state to permit them to practice
what the state considers "ethical" practices of that state. In
other words, along with their "ethical" beliefs that the state cannot
execute, they must also demonstrate their "ethical" beliefs and
turn in their medical license because they cannot follow state laws.
They should then move to a non-DP jurisdiction and obtain a
medical license in that state fulfilling their "ethical" requirements.
Nothing in any democratic institution prohibits the demonstration
of personal ethics, such as might exist in a dictatorship.
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"Action indeed is the sole medium of expression for ethics." --
Jane Addams
Planet Visitor II
I'm with you, John. The argument here of presumed "ethics" in
the belief that a lethal injection might be "painful," constituting
a claim of possibly being "cruel and unusual" is nonsense as
far as I'm concerned. As far as "painful" goes, I have said that
when I had that "butt problem" in 2003, I had two in-patient
surgeries where I was completely under, with the tube down my
throat, and six out-patient surgeries when I was under sedatives
where they could have sliced and diced me and I would have felt
nothing. This is almost one surgery every month. And in all
eight surgeries the most pain was a needle placed in my forehand.
When the drip started I felt nothing until I awoke. The argument
of a "painful" lethal injection will always be a strawman to me
from that year on.
Planet Visitor II
> direction. Any comment from PV our principle anti-ethicalist?
I have no problem with anyone exercising their personal
ethics insisting they are superior to state ethics. This seems
to me to clearly be such an issue, which even tastes a
bit like the argument of separation of church and state.
While you thump the Bible when it suits you. They should look
for Muslim doctors who have no "ethical" problem with the
death penalty.
I suspect that if I was Arnold I would look into revoking the
medical licenses of those doctors, since one of the conditions
of obtaining a medical license is to comply with the laws of
the state. Certainly "ethical" concerns of a doctor do not
give him permission to prescribe heroin in violation of state
law. They are doctors... not fucking priests. Nor can they
"ethically" euthanize a patient under their care without
a court order to do so. All they can do is withhold care
with a "do not resuscitate" request in place. If they
really are concerned about the "ethics" of the state in
respect to holding different "ethical values," this should
be reflected all across the argument that their personal
ethics cannot abide state ethical values, and they should
simply turn in their medical license and move to a
non-DP state, in my opinion. After all, they are insisting
they are "ethical," and it would not be ethical to feed
off of a state system that they do not "ethically" agree with.
I wonder if they would be so "ethical" if they could see into
the future and see that if that murderer were not executed
he would go on to murder the wife of the doctor. Bet they'd
be lining up to participate. Unless they were KKKoughlan
who insists that it would be a "lesser evil" if his wife were
to be murdered by "Kenneth McDuff" than if good ol
Kenny, the sadistic mass murderer, had instead been
executed. [1]
[1] Coughlan stated -- "The murder of an innocent by a wrongly
released murderer is the lesser of two evils." See --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/45ad448fc2e7ab95
Okay, Earl. This is obviously a fallacy of
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#generalization
He cannot make such a generalized comment unless he
admits that his comment applies to all subjects within
his comment. He must be able to admit that it applies to
all those considered "an innocent," and all those considered
"wrongly released murderers."
So let's plug in some values and see where it takes us.
First we consider -- "an innocent." Now who is "an innocent"?
Would he consider his wife as "an innocent" if she were
murdered? Well, we have another comment from him which
verifies that he would. This was his comment --
"For principled abolitionists, it would not matter if the murderer killed
our children, our mothers, our wives.... We _still_ would not support
their execution." See --
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/fdbc7222cf664006
Now that we have determined a specific "innocent" that he accepts as
a value to plug in, his comment can be stated as -- "The murder of
"my wife"by a wrongly released murderer is the lesser of two evils."
Try to argue that this is not logically accurate.
Okay... now we need to examine a SPECIFIC example of a "wrongly
released murderer," if his comment is to remain valid throughout the
spectrum of ALL "wrongly released murderers," since his comment
was generalized to ALL "wrongly released murderers." And we have
the specific example of Kenneth McDuff. See --
http://www.geocities.com/verbal_plainfield/i-p/mcduff.html
Who was most certainly a "wrongly released murderer," who
did in fact go on to murder again, after having been sentenced
to the death penalty, had it commuted to life, and was then
paroled. He went on to murder again, so it cannot be argued
he was not "wrongly released."
So if the author of that original comment, Nazi Coughlan, wishes it
to actually represent a valid comment for REAL PEOPLE, as written,
it must be valid for all values. And not some raving hysterical
affection for murderers and an anonymous "donor victim" unknown
to Coughlan. Thus it appears that he believes that this also
represents his view, using particular values of "his wife" and
Kenneth McDuff, so his words mean -- qed:
"The murder of my wife by Kenneth McDuff is the lesser of two evils."
The greater evil being in Nazi Coughlan's view, the execution of
Kenneth McDuff as originally scheduled for a number of other murders
before murdering Nazi Coughlan's wife.
Do you agree with Coughlan's comments by plugging in the
value of YOUR WIFE??? Since Coughlan's comment argues
that he cares less about YOUR WIFE than he does about the
life of Kenneth McDuff. But then he's also told your wife to
"go and fuck yourself." And you seemed to enjoy that bit
of patter.
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"We should never allow ourselves to be persuaded excepting
by the evidence of our reason, of our reason and not of our
imagination nor of our senses." -- Descartes
Earl Evleth
<david-...@the-haleys.org> wrote:
>> Just to clarify, though, the most painless death would be immediate
>> annihilation of the brain. Rifle calibre rounds to the head would do
>> just that. Even more gruesome (and tricky to clean up) but definitely
>> more humane.
>
> There you go. Kind of brings to mind disintegrating guns from sci-fi movies.
> Those would perhaps be the least painful. :-)
We can devise methods of execution which are instantaneous, like using
explosives. Death occurs faster than nerve transmissions, you "never
knew what hit you".
The problem with the torture of the death penalty is not the execution
itself but the period leading up to it. At one time the French used
to execute on a specific date unknown to the person being executed.
The to-be-executed could be taken out and beheaded at 5-6AM of any
morning. So the victim of this procedure would be under threat of
dying on any day of the week. Sleeping became nearly impossible since
a 5 AM one might be taken out and killed. Certainly that had the
aspect of being cruel and unusual.
But also is an execution scheduled for a particular date. One might
well live in hope of being given a grace at the last moment, by
the President of the Republic in France. But this possibility
also has a cruel and unusual aspect.
So on it goes, the argument of what is cruel and unusual.
As members of a particular society we individually have some responsibility
for executions. But in no way is the responsibility presented to us.
We individually have no real fear of having to serve as the executioner.
If the possibility was real, we might well decide so allow
the condemned person live out his life, we would refuse to play a part in
this dirty business.
Some doctors in California decided that their professional ethics prevented
them from playing a role in the execution. That is a cop-out, since
why can't just ethics in general prevent on from playing a role?
David Haley
> As a physician, I must say that I am disgusted at the grotesque and
> disrespectful way that our states have made executions. Why not make it
> more appealing to the public? Why not make it like a medical procedure?
> Bring out the alcohol swabs, make sure that the inmate doesn't get a nasty
> infection before an I.V. line is started. The same medical technology that
> would save a child in shock is now used to kill a human being. The same
> paramedics used to get someone revived are used to kill someone. Now,
> apparently, the state of California has decided to dip into the pool of
> medical professionals to make killing more palatable. Being a medical
> professional means more than simple obedience to the state. I would hope
> that my patients know that I would have no part in the scheduled killing of
> a human being. I would not want any patient to know that I was pushing
> lethal drugs into someone's father, into someone's son, into someone's
> brother. The medical training that I hold was not intended to kill, but for
> the public to trust. What is scary is that lots of people feel that it is
> the duty of a physician to inject poison into someone who twelve perhaps
> undereducated people (who all agree to consider killing a fellow citizen, by
> the way) convicted, who likely do not really understand DNA evidence to
> start with.
> There is a reason why the AMA, and most physician groups do not
> participate. We find it unethical, and agree with the majority of the world
> that the current method of "medicalization", if you will, of an execution
> procedure, disgraces the honor of our profession. When you look at a
> gurney, you should think of lifesaving technology, and a chance at quality
> life. When you think of I.V. tubing, and injections, you should think of
> lifesaving drugs. When you think of a physician, you should think of
> someone who cares, who wants to help people, not tear them down.
> To liken the institution of medicine to killing prisoners has been done
> before. It is called Nazi Germany, and WWII era Japan. It didn't work out
> so well. There is no difference in moral standard in our profession today.
> Furthermore, I do not feel that most of the prisoners on death row killed in
> this manner, giving their victim a date to die after locking them in a box,
> and then using medical technology to kill the victim. Why must we lessen
> the medical profession in this matter?
> If this was another profession, say hairstylists, and the prisoner was
> put in a hairstyling chair, pumped up, and a protective covering was placed
> around his neck to keep it "clean", and then a hairstylist was asked to
> drive scissors into his heart, or cut his throat, I think you would find
> many hairstylists outraged. Or, perhaps not. I do understand why that the
> anesthesiologists walked out of that gruesome distortion of this profession,
> and I hope that this profession would have enough honor in the future to not
> have one volunteer for this sick and twisted job.
> I would hope that all states reform the death penalty to take the
> doctors out of the death chambers. Perhaps there should be a separate
> institution for those who wish to inflict death on others to attend. I
> think that prisons obviously are full of killers who would love to take
> another life. Perhaps if the state is so diligent in propagating the
> execution process, they should cross-train criminals in taking care of their
> own.
I respect where you're coming from, but your absolutism does you disservice. For
starters, the 'medical profession' includes a lot of people whose job is not
necessarily caring for patients. Perhaps you would not call them "doctors" but I
do not think you could deny their belonging to the 'medical profession'.
Besides, one, two, one hundred, ... doctors being immoral hardly makes all
doctors immoral. That's just as silly as one construction worker screwing up a
house making all construction workers look incompetent. It doesn't "shame the
construction profession" to have incompetents; it shames the incompetents. So, I
think you are reaching a bit when you claim that this makes doctors like GPs
look evil and nasty.
Electricity is/was used to execute -- does that make all electricians or other
people involved in electricity look evil?
There are of course issues like the Hippocratic oath etc. but your position
extends far beyond one individual's own personal actions, and claims that the
entire profession suffers for one person's misdeeds.
> As weird as this may sound to the reader, it is 100 times more
> unacceptable to me to ask a doctor to kill. Period.
> "bigdawg"
You're right, it does sound very weird... and unhealthy, and slightly arrogant
and self-centered, to boot. :-) Could not prison wardens express the same
disgust and anger at having their profession be denigrated by having to train
criminals to kill each other? Why is it that doctors have the privilege of
deciding who gets to do "medical stuff" but other people don't?
H...@nospam.nix
"bigdawg" <som...@youwish.com> wrote in message
We find it unethical, and agree with the majority of the world
> that the current method of "medicalization", if you will, of an execution
> procedure, disgraces the honor of our profession.
How do you feel about late term (partial birth) abortions when the mother's
life and health are not at risk? And if you are a medical professional as
you
say, you know that this is done.
I once mentioned as a response to one of Donna's posts that the abortion
laws here might have to be modified. Now the new rightist Supreme Court
of the USA will take up this very question.
In general, I don't get too involved with abortion questions, but I have
real concerns about this particularly gruesome procedure.
H...@nospam.nix
"John Rennie" <jo...@rennie69.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:dtg3e0
> There we go. The NKVD killed humanely in the Lubianka. I knew
> if one waited long enough one could find something nice to say about
> them.
The NKVD and later KGB killed with a pistol shot to the back of the head.
But it wasnt quick. They sometimes taunted prisoners and simulated the
expected execution several times, according to some who survived
imprisonment
there.
The pain of imprisonment, the brutal questioning, and the psychological
torture
was likely worse that a quick and merciful death.
The first time I rode past the Lubyanka, I was told to keep my head pointed
forward, but I could glance out of the corner of my eye. I was warned not
to
show any interest at all...to act as if it didn't exist. It was THAT
serious in
decades past.
Jimbo
Just shoot the murderous fucker in the head and end this bullshit
Donna Evleth
> From: "bigdawg" <som...@youwish.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 23:32:51 -0500
> Subject: Re: Doctors halt 'painless' execution
>
> I disagree with the "partial birth abortion". Before my next statement, I
> must say that I have trained in an area of a moderately large population. I
> must say, I am both honored and disgusted to see a pair of unused abortion
> scissors that would be used in the event of this "partial birth abortion",
> as you call it. With my experience of obstetrics, I have never seen the use
> for it (the "honor" part), and I do feel that it takes a very different
> medical opinion in order to use these tools (the "disgust" part). I do not
> understand how that we try so hard to save an infant who is 30 weeks with a
> Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), but, because one doctor feels that it
> may benefit the mother, instead of doing a C-Section, they must partially
> deliver the 30 week infant, stick the scissors into its brain, and then
> forcefully maneuver the scissors until death occurs, and then deliver the
> collapsed head of the infant. I know of no case where this is truly
> warranted. I must say that for my specialty, I have scored in the top 10
> (not percent, but actual number) in the nation on the board exam, and
> graduated 6th in my class. I hope that my medical expertise would justify
> my statement as above. I often wonder how that one judge can condemn one
> man with the words "may God have mercy on your soul", when the same legal
> system allows physicians to perform this procedure. I hope this answers
> your question. I can not understand the support, from any side, moral,
> political, legal, etc.
> "Bigdawg"
I always wondered too why they didn't do a C section in such cases. It
strikes me as a lot easier on everyone, particularly the fetus, but the
medical personnel as well, and even the woman, since the "partial birth"
procedure cannot be pleasant for her. C sections are not that painful or
hard to recover from, I know, I had one. If the woman does not want to keep
the baby, she could give it up for adoption. If it needs special neo-natal
care, the anti-abortion groups should be more than willing to take up a
collection.
But this brings me back to the original question. Why do they do this
partial birth abortion instead of a C section? Since you are a doctor,
"Bigdawg", can you answer it?
Donna Evleth
>
> <H...@nospam.nix> wrote in message
> news:i2_Kf.33487$Jd.1...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
H...@nospam.nix
is
> not OK to participate in an execution.
Perspectives....
Is it okay to send a soldier into battle to kill others, even innocents.
And if
you send him into battle, do you refuse him care, physician, because you
don't believe in war??
If a person is sent to his death by the state, because of heinous crimes,
do you refuse him the most painless death that the medical profession
could provide?
Death is inevitable. It may sometimes be postponed, but the finality of
it is inarguable.
Is the physician's role to give care and release from pain, or to use his
profession to make political statements?
Perspectives...........
John Rennie
<H...@nospam.nix> wrote in message
news:bo_Mf.41162$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
It is not a physician's role to kill.
Donna Evleth
> From: <H...@nospam.nix>
> Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:55:51 GMT
> Subject: Re: Doctors halt 'painless' execution
>
> Perspectives....
> Is it okay to send a soldier into battle to kill others, even innocents.
> And if
> you send him into battle, do you refuse him care, physician, because you
> don't believe in war??
No, you do not refuse him care. In fact, conscientious objectors become
medics. As to sending the solider into battle, it depends on the
circumstances. Self defense has always been considered legitimate. But it
had better be genuine self defense, not some trumped up excuse.
Donna Evleth
mister...@hotmail.com
jo...@rennie69.wanadoo.co.uk says...
Some physicians would disagree with you, John, including those employed
in the many hospices for the terminally ill and those charged with
caring for people in chronic pain or with non-lethal, debilitating
illnesses or injuries. The issue is the doctor's role in preventing
suffering and sometimes killing the patient is the best way to do that.
To extend that to the execution gurney would be easily argued, I reckon,
as the "patient" is indisputably terminal and a poorly administered
lethal injection, whilst it may still kill, can cause significant
suffering. I'm quite frankly amazed that there would be this sort of
discussion around the subject, as it's an ethical dead-end, it seems to
me.
>
>
>
--
Cheers,
Craig
H...@nospam.nix
"Donna Evleth" <dev...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:C02A70B5.2A0D5%
> > Perspectives....
> > Is it okay to send a soldier into battle to kill others, even innocents.
> > And if
> > you send him into battle, do you refuse him care, physician, because you
> > don't believe in war??
>
> No, you do not refuse him care. In fact, conscientious objectors become
> medics. As to sending the solider into battle, it depends on the
> circumstances. Self defense has always been considered legitimate. But
it
> had better be genuine self defense, not some trumped up excuse.
Many things in life are 'trumped up'.
The perspective that the physician is not supposed to kill is very
idealistic,
but if he performs certain types of abortions, he in fact kills a viable
child.
(And I am particularly talking late term partial birth abortion.)
The physician should not be expected , nor forced, to kill a person on death
row. But if that person is to be executed - no way out - , should he not
afford
the person sedation, or whatever medication necessary, to ease his execution
at the hands of the state?
John Rennie
<mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e6f4f628...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
snip
>> >
>> >
>>
>> It is not a physician's role to kill.
>
> Some physicians would disagree with you, John,
Doctor Shipman for instance
including those employed
> in the many hospices for the terminally ill and those charged with
> caring for people in chronic pain or with non-lethal, debilitating
> illnesses or injuries. The issue is the doctor's role in preventing
> suffering and sometimes killing the patient is the best way to do that.
You don't go to a hostice to be killed off by its doctors.
Their job is simply to reduce pain and very often the
requisite amount of morphine needed to reduce a patient's
pain terminates the life of the patient. However the intent is
NOT to kill.
mister...@hotmail.com
jo...@rennie69.wanadoo.co.uk says...
>
>
>
--
Cheers,
Craig
Planet Visitor II
Yet they often do. Shipman... anyone???
Plus it all depends upon your definition of "kill." No one's role is
to murder, but self-defense is the role of every citizen, and democracy
carries with it the obligations of a citizen. If one supports the justice
system, the obligation imposed by that justice system to both
not commit crime and to support punishment for crime is obvious.
Unless one claims that he does not consider a particular crime to
actually be a crime. I think we can dispense with anyone other
than euroscum, and KKKoughlan believing that murder is not a crime,
but legal... as in their insistence that there is "legal murder."
IMO, if one supports L wop or even life for a murderer there is no
logical or moral reason to argue that is not the same as killing that
person's ability to ever function in society again. In fact, it seems
immoral to me to support L wop and oppose the death penalty,
especially for reasons other than the possibility of "exoneration"
(ho ho ho) 20 years later for someone sentenced to L wop. Since
it sounds like support for a lifetime of torture as opposed to a
humane ending of that life.
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"Freedom without obligation is anarchy. Freedom with obligation is
democracy. -- Earl Riney
David Haley
>> Besides, one, two, one hundred, ... doctors being immoral hardly makes all
>> doctors immoral. That's just as silly as one construction worker screwing
>> up a house making all construction workers look incompetent. It doesn't
>> "shame the construction profession" to have incompetents; it shames the
>> incompetents. So, I think you are reaching a bit when you claim that this
>> makes doctors like GPs look evil and nasty.
>
> mean it. If I appeared this way, sorry. I accept that the profession is
> not accepting of physicians who kill. Shame on those who deviate from the
> ethical standard set by their peers. They should be confronted, and
> aligned.
On this we agree. That being said, somebody mentioned the argument: if somebody
is going to be killed anyhow -- with or without the doctor's intervention --,
would it not be a doctor's duty to make that as painless as possible?
>> There are of course issues like the Hippocratic oath etc. but your
>> position extends far beyond one individual's own personal actions, and
>> claims that the entire profession suffers for one person's misdeeds.
>
> There is clearly a line crossed here. The profession as a whole says it is
> not OK to participate in an execution. Most of us feel it is unethical, and
> perhaps immoral.
I am uncertain of the distinction you draw between unethical and immoral. It
seems to be fairly important, because you imply that something could be
unethical, but moral, or perhaps even immoral yet ethical.
> The state, in this case California, does not respect the
> autonomy of our profession, and for some reason feels that we have botched
> it all up. They have asked 2 physicians to disregard the ethical standards
> of their profession, and to cross over and be killers, in the name of the
> law. In my opinion, this attempts to shatter the foundation of the
> physician network, which I refer to as the "profession". I am glad that the
> doctors here did not bow to the state's pressure.
My understanding is that their role was to make the process as painless as
possible. I understand that this is a touchy, gray issue but I don't think it's
quite as simple as asking them to kill the convict, no?
>>> As weird as this may sound to the reader, it is 100 times more
>>> unacceptable to me to ask a doctor to kill. Period.
>>> "bigdawg"
>> You're right, it does sound very weird... and unhealthy, and slightly
>> arrogant and self-centered, to boot. :-) Could not prison wardens express
>> the same disgust and anger at having their profession be denigrated by
>> having to train criminals to kill each other? Why is it that doctors have
>> the privilege of deciding who gets to do "medical stuff" but other people
>> don't?
>
> Prison wardens COULD indeed recognize that this may be unethical. However,
> I feel that in our lopsided legal system, there is no room whatsoever for
> anyone who is not willing to condemn, handle the condemned, or execute the
> condemned.
And there shouldn't be! You're grouping together judging criminals with
executing them -- but those seem like completely different things. If somebody
isn't willing to condemn criminals, then they have no real place in the judicial
system to begin with -- and that includes that they cannot coherently expect its
protection, because that would require the condemning of the violator.
> I can name several employment opportunities for me, as a
> physician, if I opened the interview conversation with "I do not belive in
> taking part in the execution process", but really, do you think anyone who
> considers themselves to be "professional" who openly opposes the DP as a
> warden, guard, etc. would be offered a job at a place of state-ordered
> killing?
At a prison in general? Perhaps, why not? As a death row executor? Probably not.
Do you think a doctor who opposes abortions would be offered a job at an
abortion clinic?
Planet Visitor II
> On this day of 2-25-2006 8:54 PM, bigdawg saw fit to scribe:
>> "David Haley" <david-...@the-haleys.org> wrote in message
>> news:dth8qu$1lv$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
>>> Besides, one, two, one hundred, ... doctors being immoral hardly makes all
>>> doctors immoral. That's just as silly as one construction worker screwing
>>> up a house making all construction workers look incompetent. It doesn't
>>> "shame the construction profession" to have incompetents; it shames the
>>> incompetents. So, I think you are reaching a bit when you claim that this
>>> makes doctors like GPs look evil and nasty.
>>
>> I agree here, perhaps I said "shame on the profession", and really didn't
>> mean it. If I appeared this way, sorry. I accept that the profession is
>> not accepting of physicians who kill. Shame on those who deviate from the
>> ethical standard set by their peers. They should be confronted, and
>> aligned.
>
> On this we agree. That being said, somebody mentioned the argument: if somebody
> is going to be killed anyhow -- with or without the doctor's intervention --,
> would it not be a doctor's duty to make that as painless as possible?
>
doctors are really interested in a painless lethal injection aren't
they the ones most capable of administering such an injection?
Many doctors have a-- "quibble with that interpretation of the
Hippocratic oath. In a certain light, a condemned prisoner whose
death is imminent and assured could be viewed as a terminal
patient. Then the doctors' palliative presence through the dying
process takes on a nobler tone. Despite the A.M.A.'s objections,
a survey published in 2000 by the Archives of Internal Medicine
found that 43% of responding physicians felt it was acceptable
for other doctors to inject lethal drugs as part of an execution."
-- See -
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1167754,00.html
<rest clipped>
Planet Visitor II
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/dict.html
"See they suffer death,
But in their deaths remember they are men,
Strain not the laws to make their tortures grievous."
-- Joseph Addison