|
Post by Californian on Mar 22, 2009 15:11:01 GMT -6
And, as far as I'm concerned, 0% of doctors oughta be enough, since there should be no need for their participation. Oh, so you're among the pros who think physician participation in an execution is not only unnecessary, but undesirable? I haven't started an IV in 40 years, but I bet I could still do it in my sleep. Same with a cardiac stick if the hump has bad veins. And injecting the drugs? Please. Any paramedic could do it. I say kill the guy without a physician there, and if no physician wants to pronounce the hump, have a paramedic do it (some can) or call the coroner. He (or she) has to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 15:22:21 GMT -6
And, as far as I'm concerned, 0% of doctors oughta be enough, since there should be no need for their participation. Oh, so you're among the pros who think physician participation in an execution is not only unnecessary, but undesirable? I haven't started an IV in 40 years, but I bet I could still do it in my sleep. Same with a cardiac stick if the hump has bad veins. And injecting the drugs? Please. Any paramedic could do it. I say kill the guy without a physician there, and if no physician wants to pronounce the hump, have a paramedic do it (some can) or call the coroner. He (or she) has to. Anyone can be taught to start an IV, same as anyone can be taught to tie a knot, to shoot a rifle, or flip a switch. I'm still opposed to DP, but some arguments (like demanding physician participation, and then the catch 22 of AMA forbidding it) are just ridiculous.............. call the coroner. Agreed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 15:47:25 GMT -6
I am not sure that is the real problem (At least in all states); "As a consequence of botched executions, the assistance of physicians and other health care professionals has increasingly been sought to provide consultation, place intravenous lines, mix and administer drugs, and monitor the results. This fact is not widely appreciated because such physicians often choose to remain anonymous. Still, many physicians and medical societies, including the American Medical Association and the American Society of Anesthesiology, have taken strong stands against the involvement of medical professionals in capital punishment. Although some states have forbidden medical boards to reprimand physicians who participate in executions, few medical professionals have agreed to assist in lethal injection. For example, in response to a federal court order in 2006, the State of California required the presence of qualified medical personnel at the execution of Michael Morales. Prison officials found two anesthesiologists who were willing to participate, but when informed in detail of the role they would play, they withdrew hours before the scheduled lethal injection, which was then halted." content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/4/403If a doctor does not want to be involved past a certain point, that is his right. If the state medical board states this, then it seems like the state can change the law so the doctor will not be punished. "All sides -- attorneys of the state's medical licensing board, the state prison system and the court's justices-- agreed that the issue should be decided by lawmakers. However the North Carolina legislature has shown little inclination to deal with the issue. In the past two years, lawmakers filed at least two bills to address the physician's role and ensure that there would be no punishment by the medical for participation in an execution. What happened? No action was taken on either bill." www.ethicsoup.com/2008/11/execution-doctors-unethical-whether-hanging-electrocution-gas-or-lethan-injection.htmlThe state can also properly train people as "Execution Technicians", so it is done in a professional manner and have doctors present for declaration of death and I believe this would solve most of the issues. The individual states have caused this problem, from having either incompetent or poorly trained people administrating the drugs (I know Texas has had a lot of practice, but their people seem well trained to carry out the procedure) and remove the consequences for doctors who participate. If this can be done and the state chooses not to do it, then are they really that committed to the DP, to me it sounds like a convenient excuse not to execute people. To blame the AMA, sounds kind of silly to me. Ron
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 15:52:31 GMT -6
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. That would be funny, but I bet California would require it !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 17:00:04 GMT -6
I am not sure that is the real problem (At least in all states); "As a consequence of botched executions, the assistance of physicians and other health care professionals has increasingly been sought to provide consultation, place intravenous lines, mix and administer drugs, and monitor the results. This fact is not widely appreciated because such physicians often choose to remain anonymous. Still, many physicians and medical societies, including the American Medical Association and the American Society of Anesthesiology, have taken strong stands against the involvement of medical professionals in capital punishment. Although some states have forbidden medical boards to reprimand physicians who participate in executions, few medical professionals have agreed to assist in lethal injection. For example, in response to a federal court order in 2006, the State of California required the presence of qualified medical personnel at the execution of Michael Morales. Prison officials found two anesthesiologists who were willing to participate, but when informed in detail of the role they would play, they withdrew hours before the scheduled lethal injection, which was then halted." content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/4/403If a doctor does not want to be involved past a certain point, that is his right. If the state medical board states this, then it seems like the state can change the law so the doctor will not be punished. "All sides -- attorneys of the state's medical licensing board, the state prison system and the court's justices-- agreed that the issue should be decided by lawmakers. However the North Carolina legislature has shown little inclination to deal with the issue. In the past two years, lawmakers filed at least two bills to address the physician's role and ensure that there would be no punishment by the medical for participation in an execution. What happened? No action was taken on either bill." www.ethicsoup.com/2008/11/execution-doctors-unethical-whether-hanging-electrocution-gas-or-lethan-injection.htmlThe state can also properly train people as "Execution Technicians", so it is done in a professional manner and have doctors present for declaration of death and I believe this would solve most of the issues. The individual states have caused this problem, from having either incompetent or poorly trained people administrating the drugs (I know Texas has had a lot of practice, but their people seem well trained to carry out the procedure) and remove the consequences for doctors who participate. If this can be done and the state chooses not to do it, then are they really that committed to the DP, to me it sounds like a convenient excuse not to execute people. To blame the AMA, sounds kind of silly to me. Ron Why is it silly when it all began when they adopted the AMA rules, and made it a licensing parameter. It's only an issue when anti DP activists try to make it one, as far as I have ever seen. It is a reasonable response to the issue that they have raised in appeals. AMA was the first to treat it as if it were a medical procedure that I know of, as if the one being executed is a patient. That policy was dated 1977 above, the first time such a statement was made that I know of. Why not speak out against the source? That is keying on where the whole pile of misconceptions and false assumptions started. As Scalia said, it's an execution, not surgery.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 22, 2009 19:03:47 GMT -6
This battle got much uglier when we allowed the antis to shift perception of the execution process to a medical basis. Pros intentionally shifted that perception, Bob. The antis are simply using it against the death penalty now, as they should. You can't give an opponent a loaded weapon and expect them not to use it.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 22, 2009 19:09:01 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. Exactly. There is no such thing as a humane execution. It's not supposed to be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 19:13:27 GMT -6
Why is it silly when it all began when they adopted the AMA rules, and made it a licensing parameter. I'll try to make this as short as possible, but I do have to quote a longer reference for the second part. "... some states have forbidden medical boards to reprimand physicians who participate in executions." So the state (If it chooses) can make it illegal to reprimand doctors who participate in executions. AMA was the first to treat it as if it were a medical procedure that I know of, as if the one being executed is a patient. "As a consequence of botched executions, the assistance of physicians and other health care professionals has increasingly been sought to provide consultation, place intravenous lines, mix and administer drugs, and monitor the results." The individual states sought doctors, instead of properly training their people in the first place. Ron Both quotes taken from The New England Journal of Medicine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 19:30:45 GMT -6
Why is it silly when it all began when they adopted the AMA rules, and made it a licensing parameter. I'll try to make this as short as possible, but I do have to quote a longer reference for the second part. "... some states have forbidden medical boards to reprimand physicians who participate in executions." So the state (If it chooses) can make it illegal to reprimand doctors who participate in executions. AMA was the first to treat it as if it were a medical procedure that I know of, as if the one being executed is a patient. "As a consequence of botched executions, the assistance of physicians and other health care professionals has increasingly been sought to provide consultation, place intravenous lines, mix and administer drugs, and monitor the results." The individual states sought doctors, instead of properly training their people in the first place. Ron Both quotes taken from The New England Journal of Medicine. And even after I read those words the first time, I could see why they felt reason to write the article. Heck at first I was just glad to see someone actually thought about us on our side of this horror that we never asked for, for a change. I can like the article and the reasons the writers seemed to feel that it was needed without your permission, and for any reason I want to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 20:06:14 GMT -6
I'll try to make this as short as possible, but I do have to quote a longer reference for the second part. "... some states have forbidden medical boards to reprimand physicians who participate in executions." So the state (If it chooses) can make it illegal to reprimand doctors who participate in executions. "As a consequence of botched executions, the assistance of physicians and other health care professionals has increasingly been sought to provide consultation, place intravenous lines, mix and administer drugs, and monitor the results." The individual states sought doctors, instead of properly training their people in the first place. Ron Both quotes taken from The New England Journal of Medicine. And even after I read those words the first time, I could see why they felt reason to write the article. Heck at first I was just glad to see someone actually thought about us on our side of this horror that we never asked for, for a change. I can like the article and the reasons the writers seemed to feel that it was needed without your permission, and for any reason I want to. Huh ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 20:08:52 GMT -6
And even after I read those words the first time, I could see why they felt reason to write the article. Heck at first I was just glad to see someone actually thought about us on our side of this horror that we never asked for, for a change. I can like the article and the reasons the writers seemed to feel that it was needed without your permission, and for any reason I want to. Huh ? I see no reason for us to talk anymore. I'll stay away from you if you stay away from me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2009 20:10:54 GMT -6
I see no reason for us to talk anymore. I'll stay away from you if you stay away from me. Sounds like a plan !
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Mar 22, 2009 21:35:11 GMT -6
It is a rather interesting position. How does one end a person's lfie without violating the 8th Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment.
IMO, a doctor assisting in an execution is perfectly fine. But let's be honest. The doctor's role in the execution is greatly limited. A simple EMT could set the iv line.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Mar 22, 2009 23:32:29 GMT -6
It is a rather interesting position. How does one end a person's lfie without violating the 8th Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment. The 8th Amendment has been a thorn in the side of the Pro Majority for far too long. Simply put, the amendment should be repealed. If the 8th was repealed, the doctor's role would probably be rendered useless. All he would have to is identify the condemned's brain matter on the walls of the execution chamber. Seriously, executions are not medical procedures. Therefore, does the AMA code apply to nonmedical procedures?
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 23, 2009 5:25:08 GMT -6
And thus is the complex issue of the DP
It is a good tactic to further slow and/or stop the process of execution. I don't support it, but I must concede that it is a good move. Find a weak link in the process and go after that weak link. The doctors were an easy target with their high and noble ideals. If they don't have the ideals you agree with, then go after their license. Bravo well played.
Bob has the answer. Simplify the process and remove the road block; states with the DP need to train a trained individual to prepare the prisoner and administer the drugs. That person can determine if the procedure is complete and then turn it over to the coroner to pronounce death.
The coroner's job is death so, they can't be targeted. The state trained execution is trained by the state. As long as the state establishes a training and qualification procedure in advance, this is not an issue and will probably take less time and money than a lengthy appeal or passing laws to protect doctors, etc.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Mar 23, 2009 5:53:13 GMT -6
Not this old chestnut again , have we not had this discussion a thousand times and the same things always comes about . It is a doctor who can legally pronounce someone dead is it not. I mean , if a bloke has lost his head then it doesnt take a Frenchman or an Idiot to know he is dead yes, but if not then im sorry. I side with the doctors and their ethical stance here, which is a little contradictory but so am i and others so whats the difference. If we make it simpler where does that lead and who else will argue that they have the training and authoriity to pronounce death. Nope sorry, a doctor or not at all. Train a bloke to inject and administer by all means but not to pronounce death.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 23, 2009 6:48:57 GMT -6
Nope sorry, a doctor or not at all. Train a bloke to inject and administer by all means but not to pronounce death. Sorry Lawrence, but in this country a coroner can and usually does in those instances when medical attention is not needed (i.e beheading and/or execution). The doctor doesn't need to be there at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2009 6:59:34 GMT -6
Nope sorry, a doctor or not at all. Train a bloke to inject and administer by all means but not to pronounce death. Sorry Lawrence, but in this country a coroner can and usually does in those instances when medical attention is not needed (i.e beheading and/or execution). The doctor doesn't need to be there at all. I thought all coroners were medical doctors, but guess I was wrong. "In countries such as the US, where the coroner is an elected, political position, a coroner need not be a medical examiner, though many are." (taken from Wiki) Ron
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 23, 2009 7:15:47 GMT -6
Sorry Lawrence, but in this country a coroner can and usually does in those instances when medical attention is not needed (i.e beheading and/or execution). The doctor doesn't need to be there at all. I thought all coroners were medical doctors, but guess I was wrong. "In countries such as the US, where the coroner is an elected, political position, a coroner need not be a medical examiner, though many are." (taken from Wiki) Ron I interpreted Lawrence's comment to imply a doctor as being a medical professional with standing in a health care facility or practice; not an elected official or person hired by the locality or state to serve in that regard. A coroner, for purposes of this discussion, need not be concerned with losing their license to practice medicine.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Mar 23, 2009 7:18:51 GMT -6
I don't think physicians are necessarily needed unless maybe in rare instances to resesitate the inmate after the last minute phone call-but I have never heard of that happening.
I can why the AMA is against physicians participating-I mean isn't there motto perserve life at all costs and then there is the DP that does the complete opposite--either way, if they participate or donèt participate I donèt necessarily see the problem considering that there are actual medical staffs playing the angel of mercy on patients(who are innocnet).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2009 6:42:15 GMT -6
I'll try to make this as short as possible, but I do have to quote a longer reference for the second part. "... some states have forbidden medical boards to reprimand physicians who participate in executions." So the state (If it chooses) can make it illegal to reprimand doctors who participate in executions. Like I said, if the state wants to fix this, it is within their power ! "Doctors And The Death Penalty There may be a moratorium on the death penalty in North Carolina, but the topic is still hot enough to get a bill about it rolling in the General Assembly. A bill in the N.C. House aims to ensure that any doctor or health care professional that assists in death row executions would not be disciplined by the state medical board. North Carolina Medical Board rules say the board can punish any doctor who assists in an execution. The bill also would not allow the North Carolina Board of Nursing or the North Carolina Board of Pharmacy to punish health care workers who assist in death row executions." www.witn.com/politics/headlines/41904712.htmlRon
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 26, 2009 6:50:33 GMT -6
I thought all coroners were medical doctors, but guess I was wrong. "In countries such as the US, where the coroner is an elected, political position, a coroner need not be a medical examiner, though many are." (taken from Wiki) Ron That is accurate, but it is increasingly rare for a county coroner not to be a physician. Those who are not generally contract with a local physician or a larger county that does have a physician for needed services. Any coroner, whether a physician or not, can pronounce death. Some states and counties also authorize paramedics to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Mar 26, 2009 8:12:07 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. But it would be very messy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2009 9:06:25 GMT -6
And no one could mistake it for a medical procedure either. But it would be very messy. Absolutely I could never watch such a thing. I was being sarcastic. I have trouble with some tv shows even. For the first few years after Beth's murder I could hardly watch anything at all - couldn't even sit in the family room and watch the shows on tv together that we had before. That was when I got in the habit of spending more time on the computer. The first movie I went to after was that one about Pearl Harbor - with others in our family who wanted to see it too. I spent most of the time sitting in the lobby waiting for the others, as it was hard for me to even breathe being in the same room with all that carnage on the screen.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Mar 26, 2009 11:30:41 GMT -6
But it would be very messy. I have trouble with some tv shows even. For the first few years after Beth's murder I could hardly watch anything at all - couldn't even sit in the family room and watch the shows on tv together that we had before. That was when I got in the habit of spending more time on the computer. The first movie I went to after was that one about Pearl Harbor - with others in our family who wanted to see it too. I spent most of the time sitting in the lobby waiting for the others, as it was hard for me to even breathe being in the same room with all that carnage on the screen. Murder is such a sad thing in so many ways.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2009 11:55:38 GMT -6
I have trouble with some tv shows even. For the first few years after Beth's murder I could hardly watch anything at all - couldn't even sit in the family room and watch the shows on tv together that we had before. That was when I got in the habit of spending more time on the computer. The first movie I went to after was that one about Pearl Harbor - with others in our family who wanted to see it too. I spent most of the time sitting in the lobby waiting for the others, as it was hard for me to even breathe being in the same room with all that carnage on the screen. Murder is such a sad thing in so many ways. Yes it is Agaveman. And I want you to know that I have always appreciated your recognizing that, regardless of any differences we may have. I remember when you first came here, and you very gently ASKED how proDP MVS feel about it. I could tell that it mattered to you how we feel about things. (and in case some of you have not been here long enough to know this, Agave was actually anti or fence sitter, I can't remember which, when he first got here). We may not have the same beliefs about parts of all this horror that is murder. But you've always recognized and respected how those of us who never asked for any of this will have very strong feelings about it all, and I'm glad we are friends.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2009 16:51:16 GMT -6
I thought all coroners were medical doctors, but guess I was wrong. "In countries such as the US, where the coroner is an elected, political position, a coroner need not be a medical examiner, though many are." (taken from Wiki) Ron That is accurate, but it is increasingly rare for a county coroner not to be a physician. Those who are not generally contract with a local physician or a larger county that does have a physician for needed services. Any coroner, whether a physician or not, can pronounce death. Some states and counties also authorize paramedics to do so. Funny you should mention that as I just completed my First Aid & CPR class this week and it was taught by a paramedic. (this is Canada, so it is a little different.) She said that she could pronounce death, if she gets the ER doctors permission and if there are any family members present, they have to agree with it. She explained it with 2 stories, which I found interesting. She attended an accident and found the driver dead (No vital signs). She sent the data to the ER doctor and he refused to agree to it, so she had to perform CPR on the person for 35 minutes (It was out of the city), until they reached the hospital. She also attended a house of a large person, who had died (he was over 400 lbs.), because his wife would not let her pronounce death, they had to continue until he was brought to the hospital. She said it took 7 firemen and police officers to carry him out on a fireman's tarp (He was too large for the gurney). If the wife allowed them to pronounce death, they would have left the body, until the coroners office picked up the body. In both cases the patients died, but it was interesting learning the protocol. I can understand why they have to try if the doctor says so, but when the doctor agrees, why does a member of the family have to agree. I do not mean to sound insensitive, but in the family members case, it is just because they are upset and do not want their loved one gone, not because there is a chance to bring them back. I just thought I would share that as I found it to be interesting. Ron
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Mar 26, 2009 18:37:15 GMT -6
Ron,
I don't want to read minds and think for people but maybe, just maybe, they're tying to protect people. Maybe just maybe they're trying to make sure a paramedic is really trying to save a person and take everyone's emergency seriously. Sometimes we as a society like to dwell on the stories of the cute and the beautiful.
Why would the doctor and family have to agree? What if it ended up saving someone's life in the end? What if they continued to work on someone who was pronounced dead, and maybe just maybe there was a very very very faint pulse that wasn't heard and a paramedic revived someone that may have been left for dead?
Also let's not compare a paramedic pronouncing an executed murderer dead to declaring a person in a medical emergency dead.
I hope if you help someone in an emergency you will try to be sensitive to the family. Remember it is a loss of a loved one for them.
|
|