|
Post by Lisa on Mar 21, 2009 23:22:57 GMT -6
March 22, 2009 Should Physicians Participate In Capital Punishment? By Henry P. Wickham, Jr. and Michael Keane It was the height of fashion in 2005 to campaign to save the life of convicted quadruple murderer, Tookie Williams. Think of those elegant Brentwood galas where women come and go, talking of Michelangelo. Celebrity, Mike Farrell, never one to restrain those ostentatious displays of his own goodness, boasted of his efforts in this campaign to "raise the level of civility in this society." When asked by Dennis Prager if he ever spent time in the homes of the victims, Farrell intemperately accused Dennis Prager of indifference to the guilt or innocence of the condemned. A revealing triumph of the non sequitur. Dennis Prager's concern for victims is an important one, and it dared disturb Ferrell's universe. This disturbance and Farrell's incoherence are symptoms of a much deeper problem. The debate over the legitimacy of capital punishment focuses entirely too much on the criminal and its effect on him. Far too little concern has been paid to the victims and their loved ones. For the sake of brevity, we will call them "co-victims." This same lack of concern for the welfare of co-victims of capital crimes is evident in the position taken by the American Medical Association (AMA) on physician participation in capital punishment. The AMA's Code of Medical Ethics explicitly prohibits physicians from participating in legally sanctioned executions (Opinion 2.06). This prohibition is broad, and it includes not only the injection of a lethal dose, but also related activities such as monitoring vital signs and inspecting the equipment. The primary thrust of the AMA's Code of Ethics (as it is for the Hippocratic Oath) is to do no harm. However, just as the likes Mike Farrell would never spend a penny of celebrity capital for ordinary co-victims of murder, so the position of the AMA ignores its likely deleterious effects on co-victims. The endless obstruction of capital punishment, the AMA's contribution to that obstruction, and the relative leniency of imprisonment may be doing serious harm to the co-victims. A 2007 study (Vollum & Longmire, Violence Victims, Volume 22, Number 5, 2007 , pp. 601-619) examined statements by co-victims after the executions were completed. Few expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the murderer was executed, but large numbers were dissatisfied with the long delays or the relatively low level of suffering by the criminal. Many co-victims were relieved that this chapter of their lives had ended. Was this an end to their suffering and perfect closure? No, but better for co-victims than the seemingly endless legal procedures and the non-capital alternatives. If an execution of a convicted murderer brings some benefit to co-victims, does the obstruction of capital punishment cause corresponding harm? In one study (Cornell Law Review), the responses of co-victims were measured when the accused was legally exonerated. Even in cases where there was definitive, exculpatory DNA evidence, co-victims often demonstrated significant psychological trauma due to the fact that there would be no execution and seemingly no justice. It seems to us a reasonable inference that if co-victims suffer from a justified exoneration, then co-victims would certainly suffer from unwarranted and politically motivated delays of capital punishment. Absent definitive studies, there is room for reasonable conjecture on the nature of the suffering of co-victims when justice is delayed or denied. To explore better the possibly damaging effects on co-victims caused by the obstruction of capital punishment, let us use established medical terminology to describe the sufferings of co-victims that can be reasonably inferred. When a guilty murderer receives a reprieve on flimsy grounds, can we call the reaction in co-victims an"Axis 1" (ie. major psychiatric disorder) "adjustment disorder" or "anxiety disorder" that would otherwise be taken seriously by the AMA? When a co-victim suffers life-long debilitating and obsessive thoughts about the incongruity of the murderer being supported by society while the victim is entombed, can we call this obsessive compulsive disorder? Should any resulting depression caused by the delay or denial of justice suffered by co-victims be ignored? Why would the AMA presumably support treatment and benefits for those co-victims diagnosed with any of these disorders, and then take an official position that may contribute to these disorders? With these potential disorders in mind, studies should be undertaken with another concept in mind. Whether we call it a sense of injustice or a desire for vengeance, or whether we use psychiatric terminology, there is little dispute that these negative experiences of co-victims are manifest in physical changes in the brain. Some neurons sprout different "buds;" some parts of neurons die; new connections are formed; the chemical milieu at the junctions (synapses) change. These phenomena demonstrate that the brain is a living, ever-changing, constantly updating organ within which the micro anatomy is ever-growing and retracting and the chemical balance changing. Obviously both victims and co-victims suffer from the crime itself. But when there is an injustice or seemingly endless delay of justice, there is a profoundly negative experience for the co-victims that will be manifest in additional physical changes in the brain. Biologically, this further injury can be as disabling as that caused by a blow to the head. Thus, suffering, which the AMA purportedly wants to mitigate, could very well be exacerbated by its position on capital punishment. Further study is needed on both the extent of and the justification for the potentially negative effects on co-victims of unwarranted delays, obstruction, and denial of capital punishment. Both common sense and antidotal evidence strongly suggest that real harm is caused to co-victims when this sort of justice is wantonly delayed. Absent more formal and thorough studies of the effects on co-victims, we believe that the position of the AMA is premature and unjustified, and that AMA should suspend its categorical ban on the participation by physicians in capital punishment, at least until this issue is adequately studied. The AMA's own basic "Principles" provide support for this moratorium. Laws providing for capital punishment are the result of years of experience, reflection, and debate in state legislatures. Section III of the AMA's Principles states that a physician should "respect the law." Should the AMA, as a legally constituted medical organization, formally prohibit physicians from respecting or acting consistently with a form of punishment that the law may mandate in extremely limited circumstances. Section VI states that a physician should be free to choose "whom to serve." If a criminal has committed a murder heinous enough to justify a death sentence under the law of that jurisdiction, after being afforded all the required due process, should not a physician have the choice to serve justice and to participate in such a legal process, especially when it may alleviate the suffering of co-victims? Section VII encourages a physician to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and betterment of public health. It seems to us consistent with this Principle to relieve the suffering of co-victims of murder and to participate in a process where a murderer can never murder again. It is true that these governing Principles are established in the context of a physician acting for the "benefit of the patient." Furthermore Principle VIII states that for the physician the patient is "paramount." However, in no meaningful sense is a convicted murderer who will get a lethal injection "a patient;" getting treatment on a voluntary basis being the essence of a patient. Therefore, these Principles, established by the AMA, seem to support a suspension of its ban on physicians' participation in capital punishment, and there seems nothing inconsistent with this suspension and the "paramount" concern for a "patient." The AMA should use its considerable clout to call for honest studies on the actual effects on co-victims of the obstructions and delays carrying out legally sanctioned executions. It is true that those who propose studies that may challenge the prevailing orthodoxies of our elites find it nearly impossible to get funding for these studies. However, this unsavory fact hardly justifies the failure to call for more studies on this issue. Upon the completion of thorough and honest studies of the effects on co-victims of both the implementation and obstruction of capital punishment, the AMA's position in its Code of Ethics, whatever it might ultimately be, will at least be a considered and an informed one. This, we believe, would be an improvement over the current AMA position on physician participation in capital punishment. www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/should_physicians_participate.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 7:36:36 GMT -6
I've always found it shocking that they would sanction those who assist in any way, directly or in related activities of a lawful punishment - it always seemed to me that this directly contradicts their stand on abortion. www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/Code_of_Med_Eth/opinion/opinion201.html Opinion 2.01 Abortion The Principles of Medical Ethics of the AMA do not prohibit a physician from performing an abortion in accordance with good medical practice and under circumstances that do not violate the law. (III, IV)
Report: Issued prior to April 1977.
Many thanks to the writers, for actually caring about the ones who wait for these laws to be carried out.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 22, 2009 7:58:57 GMT -6
The annoying thing about this whole brouhaha is this: Instead of death by electricity, hanging, or lethal gas, a method has been devised to rid us of these untermenschen by simply putting them to sleep. They die a death that most of us, when the time comes, would envy.
Somehow, however, physicians were injected into this simple procedure by our anti brethren. I don't see why; perhaps because the execution resembles a medical procedure. But we're killing the guy, not removing his appendix.
This highly moral group at the AMA sanctions three million abortions a year, despite the fact that the Hippocratic oath which they allege to follow specifically forbids them. Somehow, why society would perform a fourth-trimester abortion on our worst members stirs moral outrage over there.
Hypocrits. Every one of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 8:41:00 GMT -6
"If an execution of a convicted murderer brings some benefit to co-victims, does the obstruction of capital punishment cause corresponding harm? In one study (Cornell Law Review), the responses of co-victims were measured when the accused was legally exonerated. Even in cases where there was definitive, exculpatory DNA evidence, co-victims often demonstrated significant psychological trauma due to the fact that there would be no execution and seemingly no justice. It seems to us a reasonable inference that if co-victims suffer from a justified exoneration, then co-victims would certainly suffer from unwarranted and politically motivated delays of capital punishment."
This shows the trauma to 'co-victims' has nothing to do with physicians. Them being unwilling to participate in executions isn't really causing anyone harm. And, *if* we execute for the supposed sake of lessening the harm to MVS, then we should offer no appeals, since the harm to 'co-victims' is heightened even when exonerations are justified. I suggest, not everything, and in fact, very little having to do with the justice system, is about co-victims. And, in fairness, that's as it should be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 8:47:40 GMT -6
The article isn't about what the justice system should be or should not be. It is only about the AMA's stance regarding execution. Is that consistent with the other AMA policies or not? It doesn't seem to be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 9:11:11 GMT -6
The article isn't about what the justice system should be or should not be. It is only about the AMA's stance regarding execution. Is that consistent with the other AMA policies or not? It doesn't seem to be. I see and disagree, but I'll endeavor to stick to only the parts of the article that are relevant to that discussion (now the limitations have been clearly defined) and not go off on tangents which stem directly from the article I don't see it as being inconsistent, for one thing. And, if the complaint is that doctors ought consider the harm caused to MVS, even though they'll be harmed whether or not the the execution goes through, and those who'll be executed will be regardless of doctor participation, and despite those 'co-victims' aren't their patients either, then, it seems to me, the whine in the article is a lot of hooey. Better?
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 22, 2009 9:19:09 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 9:25:33 GMT -6
The article isn't about what the justice system should be or should not be. It is only about the AMA's stance regarding execution. Is that consistent with the other AMA policies or not? It doesn't seem to be. I see and disagree, but I'll endeavor to stick to only the parts of the article that are relevant to that discussion (now the limitations have been clearly defined) and not go off on tangents which stem directly from the article I don't see it as being inconsistent, for one thing. And, if the complaint is that doctors ought consider the harm caused to MVS, even though they'll be harmed whether or not the the execution goes through, and those who'll be executed will be regardless of doctor participation, and despite those 'co-victims' aren't their patients either, then, it seems to me, the whine in the article is a lot of hooey. Better? So do you think it is consistent with the other policies of their organization? I don't. I think that is a lot of hooey. They decide who lives and dies when they decide who receives the organ with the matching markers. Will the one who doesn't get that organ die based on their decision? Quite likely. Their policies also side with lawful termination of a fetus, and in some cases even late term abortions when it is for the health of the mother. And I am a patient of members of the AMA myself. A member of the AMA prescribed the prozac that I took for 6 to 8 months - to help ease the symptoms of my PTSD - as well as the various other list of symptoms that have resulted from that disease and its effects. Am I not part of the community that AMA principles support? I think they have shown that I am - but they forget about me and those like me when they threaten to expel those who participate in execution - another lawful action.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 9:45:19 GMT -6
I see and disagree, but I'll endeavor to stick to only the parts of the article that are relevant to that discussion (now the limitations have been clearly defined) and not go off on tangents which stem directly from the article I don't see it as being inconsistent, for one thing. And, if the complaint is that doctors ought consider the harm caused to MVS, even though they'll be harmed whether or not the the execution goes through, and those who'll be executed will be regardless of doctor participation, and despite those 'co-victims' aren't their patients either, then, it seems to me, the whine in the article is a lot of hooey. Better? So do you think it is consistent with the other policies of their organization? I don't. I think that is a lot of hooey. They decide who lives and dies when they decide who receives the organ with the matching markers. Will the one who doesn't get that organ die based on their decision? Quite likely. Sure. However, when someone will be harmed regardless which they choose, they go with the one who has the best chance of survival. Apples and oranges, IMO. The mother is, afterall, the patient. And, even if that weren't true, what do you propose when a choice must be made between two such 'patients' and 'someone' will be harmed either way? Ah, but according to the article you'll still suffer those regardless whether the AMA sanctions its doctors to help terminate the life of the convicted murderer, so their participation (or lack thereof) isn't really harming you further. So, the harm caused to MVS (which isn't death) should outweigh the harm caused to someone (guilty of murder or not, as the article clearly shows MVS will be just as likely to be harmed whether or not the guy who's executed actually did the crime) ought outweigh the harm of killing the SOB.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 9:57:08 GMT -6
So do you think it is consistent with the other policies of their organization? I don't. I think that is a lot of hooey. They decide who lives and dies when they decide who receives the organ with the matching markers. Will the one who doesn't get that organ die based on their decision? Quite likely. Sure. However, when someone will be harmed regardless which they choose, they go with the one who has the best chance of survival. Apples and oranges, IMO. The mother is, afterall, the patient. And, even if that weren't true, what do you propose when a choice must be made between two such 'patients' and 'someone' will be harmed either way? Ah, but according to the article you'll still suffer those regardless whether the AMA sanctions its doctors to help terminate the life of the convicted murderer, so their participation (or lack thereof) isn't really harming you further. So, the harm caused to MVS (which isn't death) should outweigh the harm caused to someone (guilty of murder or not, as the article clearly shows MVS will be just as likely to be harmed whether or not the guy who's executed actually did the crime) ought outweigh the harm of killing the SOB. I think the first part is very applicable. Someone will be harmed no matter which path - so how is that different? They consider all parties and what is lawful between the parties in other issues, so why not this one? The harm to the so called "co-victims" (and I do prefer MVS, which you used, because to me, we are not their victims, but the survivors of their victims) can be extended by the delays - this has already been well established, when and if those delays are caused by the AMA policy. And since execution is not even really a medical procedure, why is their main concern with the executee? Not with the survivors who will remain to be actual patients with medical conditions that will be under their care, whose lives they may be harming even more with their stance? ETA: JUSTICE SCALIA, from questions during oral arguments of Baze v. Rees: Mr. Verrilli, this is an execution, not surgery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 10:32:30 GMT -6
Sure. However, when someone will be harmed regardless which they choose, they go with the one who has the best chance of survival. Apples and oranges, IMO. The mother is, afterall, the patient. And, even if that weren't true, what do you propose when a choice must be made between two such 'patients' and 'someone' will be harmed either way? Ah, but according to the article you'll still suffer those regardless whether the AMA sanctions its doctors to help terminate the life of the convicted murderer, so their participation (or lack thereof) isn't really harming you further. So, the harm caused to MVS (which isn't death) should outweigh the harm caused to someone (guilty of murder or not, as the article clearly shows MVS will be just as likely to be harmed whether or not the guy who's executed actually did the crime) ought outweigh the harm of killing the SOB. I think the first part is very applicable. Someone will be harmed no matter which path - so how is that different? They consider all parties and what is lawful between the parties in other issues, so why not this one? With organ transplants, etc. both would be harmed without. So, IMO, harm (of either) isn't a consideration. They pick the best match. If that's equal, then it comes to the one who has the best chance of survival. It's obvious to me how this differs from execution. They aren't purposely causing you harm, and the amount of harm caused is subjective. However, to participate in the execution, definitely causes harm ~ death. I'm sorry, but I cannot see how PTSD can be compared to death. I agree about MVS vs 'co-victims'. Extended by the delays caused by AMA policy, worsened by an exoneration, not to mention the delays caused by limitless appeals, and an extention whenever a there's enough doubt for retrial, pulled out from beneath the surface whenever a scumpal shows up.... (oops, tangent). To me, it's just another in a long list of 'woe is me' (not me you) about MVS when, in fact, we cannot know how much more (if there's more) harm the AMA causes with the decision not to participate in executions. Are you kidding? If it's not a medical procedure (and I agree with you there), why the 'need' for them to participate at all? And, why the want to blame them for delays ~ that 'harm' (but not lethal harm) MVS? So, you want them to participate in the state sanctioned killing to keep from 'harming' MVS? I dunno. Maybe they feel as I do. My stance isn't meant to harm you or any MVS, and if it does, it's a byproduct of my being true to my beliefs and 'gut' feelings. If I want to take no chance of 'harming' other MVS, then I must support executing POS, regardless that to do so might harm my own psyche. Why is the harm to you (and other MVS who feel as you do) more important than the harm such a choice might cause doctors? ~~ and that's aside from the obvious harm that would be rendered rendering someone perfectly healthy death, no matter how nicely ~ they're still dead and I can't see a harm that's worse (regardless that with every fiber of my being I believe they deserve it).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 10:43:48 GMT -6
I think the first part is very applicable. Someone will be harmed no matter which path - so how is that different? They consider all parties and what is lawful between the parties in other issues, so why not this one? With organ transplants, etc. both would be harmed without. So, IMO, harm (of either) isn't a consideration. They pick the best match. If that's equal, then it comes to the one who has the best chance of survival. It's obvious to me how this differs from execution. They aren't purposely causing you harm, and the amount of harm caused is subjective. However, to participate in the execution, definitely causes harm ~ death. I'm sorry, but I cannot see how PTSD can be compared to death. I agree about MVS vs 'co-victims'. Extended by the delays caused by AMA policy, worsened by an exoneration, not to mention the delays caused by limitless appeals, and an extention whenever a there's enough doubt for retrial, pulled out from beneath the surface whenever a scumpal shows up.... (oops, tangent). To me, it's just another in a long list of 'woe is me' (not me you) about MVS when, in fact, we cannot know how much more (if there's more) harm the AMA causes with the decision not to participate in executions. Are you kidding? If it's not a medical procedure (and I agree with you there), why the 'need' for them to participate at all? And, why the want to blame them for delays ~ that 'harm' (but not lethal harm) MVS? So, you want them to participate in the state sanctioned killing to keep from 'harming' MVS? I dunno. Maybe they feel as I do. My stance isn't meant to harm you or any MVS, and if it does, it's a byproduct of my being true to my beliefs and 'gut' feelings. If I want to take no chance of 'harming' other MVS, then I must support executing POS, regardless that to do so might harm my own psyche. Why is the harm to you (and other MVS who feel as you do) more important than the harm such a choice might cause doctors? ~~ and that's aside from the obvious harm that would be rendered rendering someone perfectly healthy death, no matter how nicely ~ they're still dead and I can't see a harm that's worse (regardless that with every fiber of my being I believe they deserve it). Not an issue for me personally in Texas anyway, or at least not at this point that I know of. It is an issue that has caused delays in other states. You really don't see any discordance with their policies of purposely bringing out the death of babies, of choosing who lives and who dies from the recipient lists? The executee is going to die under the law, and the executees are not even "patients" by any stretch of the word. They are not going to the doctor that day; they are receiving the sentence set out under the law, the law that other policies says the AMA should support. How could the choice harm a doctor, when he could choose to or not choose to participate based on his own morals and beliefs, or s/he could if the AMA did not dictate otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Mar 22, 2009 10:57:25 GMT -6
Why is the harm to you (and other MVS who feel as you do) more important than the harm such a choice might cause doctors? This decision has been made by the AMA, not individual doctors. Doctors aren't forced to participate in executions. They apply for the position, knowing full well what's involved. Although the AMA is against doctors participating in most aspects of lethal injection, an anonymous survey of medical doctors found that many thought it was acceptable for physicians to participate in various areas of the process.
Some 80 percent of the 482 physicians surveyed in a 2000 study indicated that at least one of the eight actions not permitted by the AMA was acceptable. More than half indicated that five or more of those actions were acceptable, and 34 percent approved all disallowed actions. The full study is available from the Archives of Internal Medicine.
Some physicians, such as Doctor Carlo Musso, a Georgia physician who has participated in several executions, believe that their involvement in capital punishment allows for a more humane death for convicts. Read more from doctors on why they participate in executions in an article by Dr. Atul Gawande "When Law and Ethics Collide - Why Physicians Participate in Executions."www.pbs.org/now/shows/228/lethal-injection.html
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 22, 2009 11:02:18 GMT -6
So, you want them to participate in the state sanctioned killing to keep from 'harming' MVS? I dunno. Lynne: If and when the DP goes away, how long do you think it will take you to jump aboard the anti "LWOP is cruel and unusual punishment!" bandwagon? Edit: spelling error.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 11:07:39 GMT -6
With organ transplants, etc. both would be harmed without. So, IMO, harm (of either) isn't a consideration. They pick the best match. If that's equal, then it comes to the one who has the best chance of survival. It's obvious to me how this differs from execution. They aren't purposely causing you harm, and the amount of harm caused is subjective. However, to participate in the execution, definitely causes harm ~ death. I'm sorry, but I cannot see how PTSD can be compared to death. I agree about MVS vs 'co-victims'. Extended by the delays caused by AMA policy, worsened by an exoneration, not to mention the delays caused by limitless appeals, and an extention whenever a there's enough doubt for retrial, pulled out from beneath the surface whenever a scumpal shows up.... (oops, tangent). To me, it's just another in a long list of 'woe is me' (not me you) about MVS when, in fact, we cannot know how much more (if there's more) harm the AMA causes with the decision not to participate in executions. Are you kidding? If it's not a medical procedure (and I agree with you there), why the 'need' for them to participate at all? And, why the want to blame them for delays ~ that 'harm' (but not lethal harm) MVS? So, you want them to participate in the state sanctioned killing to keep from 'harming' MVS? I dunno. Maybe they feel as I do. My stance isn't meant to harm you or any MVS, and if it does, it's a byproduct of my being true to my beliefs and 'gut' feelings. If I want to take no chance of 'harming' other MVS, then I must support executing POS, regardless that to do so might harm my own psyche. Why is the harm to you (and other MVS who feel as you do) more important than the harm such a choice might cause doctors? ~~ and that's aside from the obvious harm that would be rendered rendering someone perfectly healthy death, no matter how nicely ~ they're still dead and I can't see a harm that's worse (regardless that with every fiber of my being I believe they deserve it). Not an issue for me personally in Texas anyway, or at least not at this point that I know of. It is an issue that has caused delays in other states. You really don't see any discordance with their policies of purposely bringing out the death of babies, of choosing who lives and who dies from the recipient lists? No, I don't. But, then I don't consider abortion the killing of babies, either. The so-called baby won't live outside the host, and the 'mother' is the patient. As to recipient lists, SOMEONE will be harmed either way. Without organ donation, both patients will die. I don't see it as harming the one, but rather, as saving one of two, and they'll save the one more likely to be benefitted by the transplant. I simply do not see the comparison between either of these and participation in an execution. And, there's no need for their participation to carry out this sentence, so I don't see why it's a big deal that they've decided they don't want to be a part of it. I dunno. Maybe they secretly took a vote and it's just easier on all of them if they're simply forbidden. Leaves me curious, though... does this outlawing of participation extend to being on DP trials? It ought to if it's consistent.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 22, 2009 11:09:03 GMT -6
Leaves me curious, though... does this outlawing of participation extend to being on DP trials? It ought to if it's consistent. No, they get paid for that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 11:28:58 GMT -6
So, you want them to participate in the state sanctioned killing to keep from 'harming' MVS? I dunno. Lynne: If and when the DP goes away, how long do you think it will take you to jump aboard the anti "LWOP is cruel and unusual punishment!" bandwagon? Edit: spelling error. That's an extremely daft leap, Bob. I don't (personally) find DP (or LWOP) cruel and unusual.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Mar 22, 2009 11:39:54 GMT -6
Allowing medicine into the process and the debate was never going to make judicial execution any more efficient, or easier, or moral than it already is.
We've driven our truck into the sand, and wonder why we can't get anywhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 11:44:11 GMT -6
Why is the harm to you (and other MVS who feel as you do) more important than the harm such a choice might cause doctors? This decision has been made by the AMA, not individual doctors. Doctors aren't forced to participate in executions. They apply for the position, knowing full well what's involved. Although the AMA is against doctors participating in most aspects of lethal injection, an anonymous survey of medical doctors found that many thought it was acceptable for physicians to participate in various areas of the process.Kinda vague. Yeah ~ so? 80% of 482 out of how many doctors (are there)? ... and more than half approved of a little over half, and a third approved of all........... and 482 doctors. And, who hand-picked the docs to participate in the study. If I appear unimpressed it's because I am.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 22, 2009 11:49:40 GMT -6
Allowing medicine into the process... "Medicine" (usually) cures people. Lethal injection is designed to kill them. This battle got much uglier when we allowed the antis to shift perception of the execution process to a medical basis. No good deed (a relatively peaceful death, in this case) goes unpunished.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Mar 22, 2009 12:14:52 GMT -6
If I appear unimpressed it's because I am. Who cares whether you're impressed or not? I didn't realize that was a requirement (or even a goal) here. If the survey is correct (and I see no reason to believe otherwise), there's a minimum of 482 doctors who are willing and able, and that's more than enough to get the job done. That's 482 doctors who feel it would do them no harm. If other docors feel it would be harmful to them, nobody's forcing them to participate. Who was studied? 1000 practicing doctors selected at random from an AMA list of doctors in the United States. Not all of the doctors were members of the AMA.
How was the study done? The researchers mailed a survey to the 1000 doctors selected from the AMA list. The survey asked the doctors about themselves and their attitudes toward the death penalty. The survey also asked the doctors whether they would be willing to do each of the following 10 things: select injection sites, start intravenous lines for lethal injection, give the injection, monitor the prisoner during the injection, pronounce the prisoner dead, inspect the injection devices, supervise lethal injection personnel, order the drugs used in lethal injection for the prison pharmacy, prescribe tranquilizers for the prisoner the night before the execution, and sign the death certificate. They then calculated how often doctors were willing to do the first eight of these activities, which are prohibited by the AMA.
What did the researchers find? Of the 1000 doctors who were mailed a survey, 962 received it and 413 completed it. Of the responding doctors, 19% said they would be willing to actually give the lethal injection and 36% said they would be willing to pronounce the prisoner dead. Forty-one percent of the doctors would do at least one of the AMA-prohibited actions, 25% would do five or more, and 14% were willing to perform all eight prohibited actions. Not surprisingly, doctors in favor of the death penalty or those who perceived a duty to society were most willing to participate in the death penalty. Very few of the doctors knew of the AMA policy on participating in the death penalty.www.annals.org/cgi/content/summary/135/10/884
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 12:31:48 GMT -6
If I appear unimpressed it's because I am. Who cares whether you're impressed or not? I didn't realize that was a requirement (or even a goal) here. You forgot the Hmm. There's a minimum of 482 doctors who didn't actually say they'd be willing, only responded to a questionaire ~ 19% said they'd do it. Oh, wait... no, 19% of 413. So, where'd 482 come from if only 413 responded? And, a thousand were asked. Still unimpressed.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Mar 22, 2009 13:21:06 GMT -6
Hmm. There's a minimum of 482 doctors who didn't actually say they'd be willing, only responded to a questionaire ~ 19% said they'd do it. Oh, wait... no, 19% of 413. So, where'd 482 come from if only 413 responded? And, a thousand were asked. Still unimpressed. You think based on one little survey, that's the sum total of all doctors who would be willing to participate in an execution? It's a little silly to debate the number, when there's more than enough if it's only 1% of all doctors. That's really all that matters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 13:34:39 GMT -6
I was wondering if someone could clear up some confusion in this topic. I wanted to read more about this and when I did a search for the AMA, it stated this in the search field;
"A voluntary association of physicians in the United States which sets standards for the medical profession"
Since it is a "Voluntary Association", I assume a doctor does not need to be a member to practice medicine. Is that correct ?
If that is correct, then it would do little to stop a doctor who wants to participate with an execution.
Also (again if correct) if the majority strongly disagree with the AMA, then it would cause the AMA to change their policy, as I believe Doctors would cease to be members (and/or cause them to start/join another affiliation).
Unless I am missing something, people are making a bigger deal out of this than it is worth.
In Canada, we have the "College of Physicians" and if you are not a member, you do not practice.
Ron
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 13:50:27 GMT -6
I found this on Wiki:
"Physician membership in the group has decreased to lower than 19% of practicing physicians. In 2004, AMA reported membership totals of 244,569, which included retired and practicing physicians along with medical students, residents, and fellows. The medical school section (MSS) reported totals of 48,868 members, while the resident and fellow section (RFS) reported 24,069 members. Combined they account for almost 30% of AMA members. If every other member of the AMA was a fully qualified practicing physician then the AMA would represent 19% of America's practicing physicians
(There are currently approximately 900,000 practicing physicians in America)."
I was right, people are making a bigger deal about this than it is worth.
Ron
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Mar 22, 2009 13:51:14 GMT -6
I was wondering if someone could clear up some confusion in this topic. I wanted to read more about this and when I did a search for the AMA, it stated this in the search field; "A voluntary association of physicians in the United States which sets standards for the medical profession" Since it is a "Voluntary Association", I assume a doctor does not need to be a member to practice medicine. Is that correct ? If that is correct, then it would do little to stop a doctor who wants to participate with an execution. Also (again if correct) if the majority strongly disagree with the AMA, then it would cause the AMA to change their policy, as I believe Doctors would cease to be members (and/or cause them to start/join another affiliation). Unless I am missing something, people are making a bigger deal out of this than it is worth. In Canada, we have the "College of Physicians" and if you are not a member, you do not practice. Ron I believe the problem arises when state medical boards (responsible for licensing physicians within each state) take direction from the AMA. Yes, the AMA is based on voluntary participation, but state medical boards are not, as long as a doctor wants to practice medicine in that particular state. www.ethicsoup.com/2008/11/execution-doctors-unethical-whether-hanging-electrocution-gas-or-lethan-injection.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 14:56:48 GMT -6
Hmm. There's a minimum of 482 doctors who didn't actually say they'd be willing, only responded to a questionaire ~ 19% said they'd do it. Oh, wait... no, 19% of 413. So, where'd 482 come from if only 413 responded? And, a thousand were asked. Still unimpressed. You think based on one little survey, that's the sum total of all doctors who would be willing to participate in an execution? It's a little silly to debate the number, when there's more than enough if it's only 1% of all doctors. That's really all that matters. But, then, if it's 1% (or 19%) of all doctors who see nothing amiss in participation in doling death, it ought come as no surprise that the AMA forbids participation. And, as far as I'm concerned, 0% of doctors oughta be enough, since there should be no need for their participation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 15:00:52 GMT -6
I was wondering if someone could clear up some confusion in this topic. I wanted to read more about this and when I did a search for the AMA, it stated this in the search field; "A voluntary association of physicians in the United States which sets standards for the medical profession" Since it is a "Voluntary Association", I assume a doctor does not need to be a member to practice medicine. Is that correct ? If that is correct, then it would do little to stop a doctor who wants to participate with an execution. Also (again if correct) if the majority strongly disagree with the AMA, then it would cause the AMA to change their policy, as I believe Doctors would cease to be members (and/or cause them to start/join another affiliation). Unless I am missing something, people are making a bigger deal out of this than it is worth. In Canada, we have the "College of Physicians" and if you are not a member, you do not practice. Ron I believe the problem arises when state medical boards (responsible for licensing physicians within each state) take direction from the AMA. Yes, the AMA is based on voluntary participation, but state medical boards are not, as long as a doctor wants to practice medicine in that particular state. www.ethicsoup.com/2008/11/execution-doctors-unethical-whether-hanging-electrocution-gas-or-lethan-injection.htmlExactly, it becomes a problem when medical boards adopt that rule also. As in the NC mess. (I don't know if that's been settled yet or not, but it is an example anyway) www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/state/key-dates-in-ncs-capital-punishment-debate-469805.html
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Mar 22, 2009 15:06:18 GMT -6
Most of the problems that arise from physicians participating in an execution can be resolved by introducing beheading as the primary method of capital punishment. It is quick, painless, certain, yet terrifying. As a side note, I have always thought it would be funny if after a decapitation, a doctor checked the headless body for a heartbeat and pronounced death.
But just read my sig. Beheading provides a simple solution to many of life's problems, and many doctors agree. So the million dollars question is whether we should use a guillotine or a headsman. And if we use a headsman, should he use an ax or a sword?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 15:08:33 GMT -6
Most of the problems that arise from physicians participating in an execution can be resolved by introducing beheading as the primary method of capital punishment. It is quick, painless, certain, yet terrifying. As a side note, I have always thought it would be funny if after a decapitation, a doctor checked the headless body for a heartbeat and pronounced death. But just read my sig. Beheading provides a simple solution to many of life's problems, and many doctors agree. So the million dollars question is whether we should use a guillotine or a headsman. And if we use a headsman, should he use an ax or a sword? And no one could mistake it for a medical procedure either.
|
|