Doctors Refuse to Assist Execution
From the Times Online:
The execution of a Californian man was postponed at the last minute yesterday after two court-appointed doctors refused to help to administer the lethal injection, a move that reignited America’s death penalty debate.
Michael Morales, who has been on death row since 1983 for the rape and murder of a teenage girl, was scheduled to die at 12.01am. But the execution was suddenly put off after the two anaesthetists withdrew, claiming their involvement would violate their medical oath to preserve life.
The involvement of the doctors, which had been ordered by a judge, was the first such case in the US and stemmed directly from research in The Lancet, the British medical journal, last year. The article, published in April, has shaken up advocates on both sides of the death penalty issue in the US because it suggested that some prisoners executed by lethal injection suffered agonising deaths…
…But rather than stay the execution, the judge gave prison officials two options: bring in the doctors to ensure that Morales was properly anaesthetised, or forgo the paralysing and heart-stopping drugs and kill Morales with a huge dose of barbiturates. The state of California agreed to provide two unidentified anaesthetists.
Just hours before the execution time, everything appeared in order. Despite the fierce opposition to medical participation in executions by the American Society of Anaesthesiologists and the American Medical Association, on the ground that physicians take an oath to preserve life, the two doctors are understood to have volunteered to attend the lethal injection procedure.
Then, shortly before the execution was due to take place, the doctors withdrew. They appear to have become alarmed at the details of the judge’s order, in particular a requirement that they intervene in the event that Morales woke up or appeared to be in pain. “Any such intervention would clearly be medically unethical,” they said.
Morales was again due to be executed early today, this time by a fatal overdose of barbiturates. But the delays and confusion increased hopes among death penalty opponents that both public opinion, and that of the courts, was shifting against the death penalty.
Here’s more from The Mercury News:
“the state said it could not find a licensed medical professional to give the lethal injection. Previously, prison employees have inserted the intravenous lines, and then the drugs were added by a machine.”
Doctors are violating the Hippocratic oath when they assist in executions. As California Medical Association CEO Jack Lewin, M.D says, “Physicians should be treating people’s illnesses, not participating in their execution. Participation in an execution goes against longstanding principles of professional ethics and is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath: First, Do No Harm.” Therefore, I am glad that the medical community has decided to take a stand. I was surprised to find out that the California Medical Association (CMA) is also opposed to physician assisted suicide.
However, the CMA supports abortion, although this too is against the Hippocratic oath. I suppose getting 2 out of 3 right is better than most. But you would think that they would at least remain consistent.
1Matt
wrote on 31 December 1969 at 19:00
I don’t think medical professionals should violate the Hippocratic oath for capital punishment or for abortion, or euthanasia. Period.
I don’t think that medical professionals should be required for capital punishment, the suggestion is ludicrous. Not that I’m justifying capital punishment in any particular case, just criticizing suggestion that a doctor is required.
Personhood as defined by our modern relativist society is based on the value of the individual to others, since the wanted unborn is valued it’s a person, the unwanted unborn is not. Sooner or later this will extend to the aged, the sick, the disabled, and perhaps the unattractive, and untalented. Look at what that woman from the Netherlands is talking about - forced abortion and sterilizations for the poor and indigent.
2skeptical catholic
wrote on 23 February 2006 at 0:26
Unfortunately, since they do not recognize the unborn as a person, they are consistent.
We must find a better way of educating people to the fact that a fetus is a person or we will never get rid of abortion.
3Christian Conservative Patriot
wrote on 23 February 2006 at 7:16
Let’s see, doctors perform in-utero surgery on these unborn “things” to save their lives and we have neo-natal intensive care units to rescue these “things” once they make it through a “magically transforming” 8 inch birth canal, but the highly educated medical community cannot recognize the unborn “thing” as a person. Yet, they have great moral commitment and compassion to “doing no harm” to and preserving the life of a convicted rapist/murderer. Doesn’t appear consistent at all to me, skeptical c.
If anyone reading this has any doubt as to the fact this “thing” is definitely a baby, I dare you to go to abort73.com Sorry, I can’t seem to get a link to work.
4Intellectual Insurgent
wrote on 23 February 2006 at 17:32
Curious - where does the CMA stand on assisted suicide? The CEO of the CMA says that doctors should treat people’s illnesses and that doesn’t sound like it should include facilitating death.
5Katelyn Sills
wrote on 23 February 2006 at 18:26
SC,
Excerpt of the Hippocratic oath:
“I will give no deadly drug to any, though it be asked of me, nor will I counsel such, and especially I will not aid a woman to procure abortion.”
They cannot be proud of upholding one part of the oath, but failing miserably in the next.
6Katelyn Sills
wrote on 23 February 2006 at 18:31
II,
Yes, the CMA is against physican assisted suicide.
From here:
“CMA policy reaffirmed by the CMA House of Delegates in 2005 opposes the legalization of physician-assisted suicide as a violation of the fundamental ethic of the medical profession to do no harm.
Physicians are trained to provide compassionate care. A patient with a terminal illness may suffer from fear of pain, depression, isolation or a loss of dignity. The physicians role is to reduce such suffering and provide compassionate palliative care. Research shows that many individuals who request physician-assisted suicide withdraw such requests when their fears are addressed and their pain and depression are treated.
The bill is currently before the state Senate Judiciary Committee. CMA urges physicians to call their senators and ask them to oppose the legalization of physician-assisted suicide.”
7LNaranjoiv
wrote on 23 February 2006 at 21:12
Lethal injection is not a medical procedure…..according to the state of IL??, I believe?
So, therefore, they don’t NEED a dr’s approval.
In California, if you want this doofus decision to stand, then make up a new job for the posistion:
Executioner
then again, perhaps one should read the WHOLE hypicritical oath thingie again.
BTW?? Also look up the procedures for an NRO …….ie, No Revive/recisitation Order.
I’m sure the Dr can explain THAT procedure too.
8Morpheus
wrote on 23 February 2006 at 21:36
Katelyn,
How is execution a violation of the Hippocratic Oath? Shouldn’t ‘Do No Harm’ also be expanded to include ‘Do not rape and murder’? Why is it that a convicted criminal should not be executed? I’m just wondering on your grounds for writing as such.
P.S. I might have a death-penalty discussion of sorts on my blog soon… maybe… if anyone’s interested.
9Morpheus
wrote on 23 February 2006 at 21:39
additional thought: the doctors who withdrew administering the injection to M. Morales said that in doing so they would violate their oath ‘to preserve life.’ what about the girl that Morales raped and murdered? Who was looking out for her and preserving her life? How is it that an innocent girl can be raped and murdered (I’m sure it was referred to as a ‘tragedy’ back in the day when it happened) but the man who did unspeakable things to her killed her is being protected in the name of ‘preserving life?’
10Katelyn Sills
wrote on 23 February 2006 at 23:13
Morpheus,
Life in prison is most certainly not the same thing as being set free.
Life in prison is the correct punishment because the death penalty is not necessary.
Punishment should:
1. protect society from the criminal
2. reimburse the victims
3. deter future crime
Both life in prison and capital punishment protect society. Neither life in prison nor capital punishment can reimburse the victim. Both life in prison and capital punishment deter future crime. Life in prison does everything the death penalty does.
You ask, “How is it that an innocent girl can be raped and murdered (I’m sure it was referred to as a ‘tragedy’ back in the day when it happened) but the man who did unspeakable things to her killed her is being protected in the name of ‘preserving life?’”
If someone could have stopped the killing of the teenage girl, I’m sure they would have. But why add more unnecessary killing, this time for the sake of revenge? What makes you think the death penalty is necessary?
11Lee
wrote on 24 February 2006 at 3:17
Morpheus,
How is execution a violation of the Hippocratic Oath? Shouldn’t ‘Do No Harm’ also be expanded to include ‘Do not rape and murder’? Why is it that a convicted criminal should not be executed?
I think you are confusing two different issues. One is that of the brutal rape and murder of a teenage girl. Did the doctors do it? NO. But you are implying that the Hippocratic Oath (which doctors take) was violated by this act? Um, no. The doctors weren’t involved.
The doctors DID take an oath to *preserve life*, not end it, and thus they can in very good conscience refuse to take part in ending someone’s life.
Now if you want to discuss the justice aspect of the death penalty, sure, but that is a different discussion, and has nothing to do with the Hippocratic Oath.
For the record, I live in Illinois. We have let go a number of *innocent* men who were sitting on death row. How many innocent men were put to death? I’m betting some. Is putting innocent men to death, sacrificing a few *innocent* men to get some bad ones, worth it? It cheapens life. It violates the idea that we all have an inherent right to life being sons and daughters of God.
Life in prison serves the purpose of punishment, and justice, and yet does not put innocent ppl to death.
-Lee
12Matt
wrote on 24 February 2006 at 17:15
I think the Hippocratic Oath binds doctors (or at least it should) in their practice of medicine, it has nothing to do with the inherent legality or morality of any act. Even in a just war, where acts resulting in the death of enemy soldiers are morally and legally licit, the Oath should prevent a doctor from performing any medical procedure which would cause harm. If the doctor picks up a rifle and fires it at an enemy soldier, that has nothing to do with the practice of medicine. If he picks up a syringe on the other hand, he is entering an area that does relate to his practice.
I still think it’s incredibly hypocritical that the doctor will turn around and kill an unborn baby, or person in a vegetative state.
13skeptical catholic
wrote on 24 February 2006 at 22:25
Katelyn, you quoted a non-standard English translation of the Hippocratic oath. If you care to research the oath, you’ll find that the injunction in the real Hippocratic oath is against giving a woman a pessary (a vaginal suppository) to produce abortion. Interpretting the original wording to mean a blanket ban on all abortion is extrapolating beyond what is actually written.
I’m no pro-choicer, but I have to call it as it is, not how I would like it to be. I do not believe the original Hippocratic oath to contain a ban on all abortions. So, I think physicians who perform abortions as they are performed today are not violating the Hippocratic oath.
14Katelyn Sills
wrote on 24 February 2006 at 23:50
SC,
Yes, there is a version that says that.
This from Nova:
“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.”
Are you telling me that Nova is non-standard and extrapolating?
15skeptical catholic
wrote on 25 February 2006 at 1:39
Are you telling me that Nova is non-standard and extrapolating?
yes. They would be. Here is the more literal translation:
“Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.”
16skeptical catholic
wrote on 25 February 2006 at 1:41
Here is a link for you:
http://duke.usask.ca/~porterj/DeptTransls/HippOath.html
The literal translation given here is: ” similarly I will not give a destructive pessary to a woman.”
17Conservative Schooler
wrote on 25 February 2006 at 3:24
SC,
If he is not taking about abortion, than what is he talking about?
18Conservative Schooler
wrote on 25 February 2006 at 3:26
“If you care to research the oath, you’ll find that the injunction in the real Hippocratic oath is against giving a woman a pessary (a vaginal suppository) to produce abortion.”
Perhaps maybe becuase that was the only easy form of abortion at the time.
Why would he ban that practice if he did not mean to ban all abortions?
19Conservative Schooler
wrote on 25 February 2006 at 3:30
Another thing (sorry, I should have combined this into one post) look at the wording of the oath from what you linked to SC:
“I will not give a deadly drug (pharmacon), not to anyone, when asked, nor will I suggest such a plan of action; similarly I will not give a destructive pessary [FN 1] to a woman.”
His use of the word similarly in that context leads us to deduce that he believes that the abortion procedure is deadly. He could not be talking about deadly to the women, so he must be saying that it is deadly to the unborn child.
20Christian Conservative Patriot
wrote on 25 February 2006 at 4:06
Skeptical c, what is your point? A pessary (vaginal suppository) used to induce abortion is morally “small potatoes” compared to the actual abortion techniques practiced today. See the facts about abortion procedures at Abort 73- abortion techniques with a brief reference included for you below:
According to abort73:
“Suction Aspiration abortion (also called Vacuum Aspiration) is the most common abortion procedure in practice today. About 90% of all abortions happen in the first trimester, and this method accounts for the vast majority of those first trimester abortions. For the procedure to begin, the woman’s cervix must be manually dilated with a series of rods to allow for the the insertion of a hollow plastic tube with a sharp cutting-tip. This tube is connected to a suction machine that is able to pull the tiny embryo or fetus apart (killing him or her in the process). The remains are sucked out of the mother and deposited into a collection canister. The placenta must then be cut away from the inner wall of the woman’s uterus before it, too, can be sucked into a collection bottle. Suction Aspiration Abortions are not generally performed before the 7th week or after the 15th.
If the original wording prohibited the abortive use of a simple suppository, surely these barbaric modern-day abortive “medical procedures” would also conflict with the doctor’s oath. For anyone still unconvinced, I encourage you to watch the video of this “safe, simple, medical procedure”.
21skeptical catholic
wrote on 25 February 2006 at 7:45
If he is not taking about abortion, than what is he talking about?
It is pretty clear from the literal translations that he is talking about giving a vaginal suppository that is laced with an abortifacient. It could be argued that the prohibition is on a specific treatment since only a specific treatment was mentioned.
He could not be talking about deadly to the women, so he must be saying that it is deadly to the unborn child.
Well, that would be your argument and you are free to make it. If Hippocrates had created the oath in a Christian context, I would agree. However, he directly praises pagan gods in the oath, so I don’t buy that a Christian interpretation was the one he intended.
I still have to question why a specific treatment is mention and not the general act of abortion. Even the ancients knew of more than one way to abort a baby.
Skeptical c, what is your point? A pessary (vaginal suppository) used to induce abortion is morally “small potatoes” compared to the actual abortion techniques practiced today
The point is, looking at the oath literally, it doesn’t say what you say it says. Hence, your statement that a physician would be inconsistent within his moral framework isn’t necessarily the case.
I agree that abortion is murder, regardless of the method used. I’m just not willing to go to the point of attributing inconsistency and evil motives to a person who, based on their mistaken beliefs, is consistent and well intended. The old saying applies: Never attribute to malice that which can also be explained by ignorance.
22Christian Conservative Patriot
wrote on 25 February 2006 at 16:10
skeptical c, Innocent ignorance is easily solved through education. Thus, no modern medical professional can plead ignorance regarding whether an unborn child is a human life. The full-knowing intent to kill another innocent human being would better describe today’s abortion provider actions, masked by the mantra, “It is a woman’s choice” to kill her own child. Therefore, your “old saying”: “Never attribute to malice that which can also be explained by ignorance” is woefully inapplicable.
23skeptical catholic
wrote on 26 February 2006 at 23:27
Sorry, CCP, but our society makes a context in which people learn. The common “wisdom” of our society is that the fetus does not have the rights of a person. Education is necessary. But, if in the course of that education you call physicians murders and insist they have evil motives, then don’t be surprised if you are written off as a wingnut religious whack job.
24Matt
wrote on 27 February 2006 at 17:46
The interpretaion of the oath in a “literal” sense clearly shows that it bans abortion, it only could be considered otherwise if you interpret it in a “literalist” sense, meaning, it doesn’t matter what the author “meant” which can be clearly inferred, but what he “said”.
In any event the proscription “first, do no harm” clearly applies to harming any human being, and therefore, regardless of the state of science at the time it was composed, we know today that the embryo is a human being and thus protected by the oath, even given the predominant lack of “wisdom” in this regard.
25skeptical catholic
wrote on 27 February 2006 at 21:53
The interpretaion of the oath in a “literal” sense clearly shows that it bans abortion, it only could be considered otherwise if you interpret it in a “literalist” sense, meaning, it doesn’t matter what the author “meant” which can be clearly inferred, but what he “said”.
And how do you know what the author meant? Because modern translations influenced by Christian ethics change the wording to apply it to all abortions?
The Greeks of the time not only practiced abortion, but also infanticide and suicide. These accepted acts with no social stigma. The great philosophers of the time, Plato and Aristotle, both supported abortion under certain circumstances. Aristotle taught delayed ensoulment, i.e., the fetus did not have a human soul until it was fully formed at about 40 days for males and 80 days for females. Aristotle’s views influenced the Christian church and from about the 4th century until the 17th century, abortion was not universally viewed as murder. Indeed, such luminary Doctors of the Church as St. Jerome in the 4th century, St. Augustine in the 5th century, and St. Thomas Aquinas in the 12th century taught that abortion early in the pregnancy was not murder.
Modern understandings of the origins of life might lead one to interpret the original Hippocratic oath to ban all abortion. But viewed in the light of ancient Greek culture (or even Christian culture from the middle ages), such an interpretation is not so certain.
In any event the proscription “first, do no harm” …
Speaking of interpretation, “first, do no harm” is no where to be found in the Hippocratic oath.
In any event, the oaths given by a supermajority of medical schools in the United States omit any reference to euthanasia or abortion.
26Lee
wrote on 28 February 2006 at 12:07
SC,
The Catholic Church from the *earliest* days has taught that the abortion was wrong, indeed was murder! Want proof? Here’s a link to the Didache, published in 80 A.D.
Here is the relevant text:
2:2 Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not corrupt youth; thou shalt not commit fornication; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not use soothsaying; thou shalt not practise sorcery; thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born; thou shalt not covet the goods of thy neighbour;
I’m sorry, you are just wrong here. For someone who is pro-life, you sure jump through a lot of hoops do defend those who are pro-choice. I wish you’d expend your intellectual abilities fighting the greatest unjustice, the murder of millions (or worldwide, billions) of unborn children that you do in defending Affirmative Action. A case can be made for AA, so I believe you are acting in very good faith there. But I will not stand by while you try to corrupt the teachings of the Catholic Church.
-Lee
27Lee
wrote on 28 February 2006 at 12:10
Also, ppl such as St. Thomas Aquinas asked when the soul was actually places into the unborn child, surmizing that it may have happened at quickening, etc. But they never said abortion was okay. They always maintained that it was wrong.
-Lee
28skeptical catholic
wrote on 28 February 2006 at 14:30
They always maintained that it was wrong.
Like I said, Sts. Jerome, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas did not believe that abortion before quickening was murder. They followed, more or less, the ideas of Aristotle on delayed ensoulment. Go back and reread what I wrote. I never said they taught it was right, I said they taught that it was not murder. That is the truth and you know it. The truth is no on the pro-choice side or the pro-life side. The truth is on God’s side.
29Lee
wrote on 28 February 2006 at 14:54
“Right is right even if no one is right, and wrong is wrong even if everyone is wrong…”
- Fulton Sheen, A Plea for Intolerance, 1929
Yes, you are right, truth is on God’s side. Indeed, He is the definition.
I apologize for the earlier tone. I get passionate if I feel someone might be (or is) misrepresenting something taught by the Catholic Church. I may have misjudged what you were trying to say. And as I did w/ Katelyn when I misunderstood her on schools, if I mistook your point, I offer my apology.
-Lee
30Lee
wrote on 28 February 2006 at 15:04
Since you mentioned Aquinas though, I know this is rehashing an old debate (evolution), but you might be interested in his proofs of God, in this section of the Summa.
-Lee
31skeptical catholic
wrote on 1 March 2006 at 23:43
Lee, I spent a fair amount of time in Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles when I converted to Catholicism many years ago. I must say, though I admire St. Thomas Aquinas’s work, I find his proofs of God’s existence lacking. In fact, I wouldn’t call them proofs so much as I would arguments to strengthen the believer since they are neither rigorous nor convincing to the non-believer.
The first three of Thomas’s arguments fall short because they require the assumption that an infinite regress is impossible. This assumption must be proven. It is not self evident.
The fourth argument is based on a questionable philosophy and argued by analogy to physics. Besides the questionable idea that “the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus”, his physics is wrong when he asserts in his analogical argument that fire is the maximum heat.
The fifth argument is just nonsense. It is not clear that natural bodies act for an end.
Sorry, but none of these arguments are convincing. Nor have I heard anyone shore up these arguments to make them more convincing. Perhaps you can provide proofs for the assumptions?
32Christian Conservative Patriot
wrote on 2 March 2006 at 1:43
Skeptical catholic,
“The Case for Christ” was recently recommended to me. According to Amazon.com, author Lee Strobel attempts to “determine if there’s credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really is the Son of God.” The book consists primarily of interviews between Strobel (a former legal editor at the Chicago Tribune) and biblical scholars such as Bruce Metzger. Each interview is based on a simple question, concerning historical evidence (for example, “Can the Biographies of Jesus Be Trusted?”), scientific evidence, (”Does Archaeology Confirm or Contradict Jesus’ Biographies?”), and “psychiatric evidence” (”Was Jesus Crazy When He Claimed to Be the Son of God?”). Together, these interviews compose a case brief defending Jesus’ divinity, and urging readers to reach a verdict of their own.
The author Lee Strobel is educated at Yale Law School, an award-winning former legal editor of the Chicago Tribunewith a background of atheism. The Experts: A dozen scholars, with doctorates from Cambridge, Princeton, Brandeis, and other top-flight institutions, who are recognized authorities on Jesus. The Story: Retracing his own spiritual journey, Strobel cross-examines the experts with tough, point-blank questions: How reliable is the New Testament? Does evidence exist for Jesus outside the Bible? Is there any reason to believe the resurrection was an actual historical event? . . .
This remarkable book reads like a captivating, fast-paced novel. But its not fiction. Its a riveting quest for the truth about historys most compelling figure. What will your verdict be in The Case for Christ
I just ordered it for myself and though your skepticism seems directed at God the Father, I thought you might also be interested in reading this verification of Christ, His Son.
33skeptical catholic
wrote on 2 March 2006 at 2:33
CCP, I read The Case for Christ many years ago. It is also not convincing from a nonbeliever’s standpoint. That is, it falls short of proof.
That the book falls short of proof is perfectly acceptable. Strobel doesn’t call his book a proof. He calls it a case. And it does read like one side of a court trial presenting its case.
The weakness in Strobel’s book, i.e. what makes it unconvincing to the nonbeliever, is that he does not truly crossexamine and address the arguments made by nonbelievers. Instead, he examines Christian experts, allowing them to put forward their beliefs and explanations. There is no cross examination by the opposing side. The result is a book very comforting to the believer, and one that can help strengthen the faith of a believer. It can also be useful for those nonbelievers who are searching. But, I’m afraid, it does not sew up the case for the skeptic.
As an aside, my personal belief in God is based on faith given graciously by the Holy Spirit. It is not based on any logical argument convincing me of God’s existence. So far, all such purported arguments have fallen short of the mark.
34Christian Conservative Patriot
wrote on 2 March 2006 at 5:17
skeptical catholic,
The Book of Hebrews was written to Jews who were struggling with their new faith in Christ. Hebrews 11:1 says, “Now, faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see”. Thus by that definition, if you could tangibly PROVE God’s existence, you would still not have faith, since it is being “certain of what we do NOT see”. You are correct faith is a free gift given graciously by the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. However, we are also given the choice to accept or reject that free gift of faith. To believe or not to believe, that is the question, and the choice is up to you.
PS After reading your opinions for several months, I have begun to wonder, is there ANYTHING you don’t already know, formed a hardened opinion about, or haven’t already read? What is left to discover when one is as learned as yourself? With all of your acquired knowledge, I humbly inquire, what is it about the Catholic faith that you remain “skeptical” about?
35skeptical catholic
wrote on 2 March 2006 at 10:13
CCP, I am not skeptical about Catholicism. I am a Catholic who is skeptical by nature, especially skeptical of unjustified claims. I believe that Jesus is our Lord. I believe in His offer of salvation and peace to us all, if we believe and adopt His way.
Most of my opinions are not as hard as you think. I am always open to new information and new understandings. The thing I am hard on is the proper use of logic and facts. I believe that truth will always honor our Father in Heaven because He is the author of Truth.