You certainly need to know quite a bit to pronounce someone dead. You want to leave that up to corrections officers?
No, I was considering training corrections officers to perform injections.
Who pronounces executed people dead? Don’t they need a physician to do that?
It varies very much by state in the US. An EMT might, a licensed nurse, etc., but there is still the problem of their oath to do no harm prior to pronouncing that death. Pronouncing someone dead is in fact assuring that a person is not about to be shut in a casket alive, which is preventing harm.
A physician may be willing to come in after the fact to pronounce death but they won’t participate in the process of planning or carrying out an execution.
That said, the popular conception that doctors “cannot” participate in executions is simply untrue. They can, and they do. (A doctor was on hand during the botched execution of Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma, but his role in the events remains unclear.) Numerous doctors have participated in hundreds of executions over the past three decades. My research has determined that none has ever been disciplined by a state medical board for participation in an execution, and laws preclude such discipline in most states. Moreover, the ethical guidelines of the American Medical Association are just that – guidelines. The harshest punishment the association could dole out is revocation of A.M.A. membership, which is not much of an enforcement mechanism given that only about 20 percent of doctors are members of the association.
From the AMA’s statement on the ethics of participating in capital punishment:
Today, the AMA Code of Medical Ethics speaks directly to a physician’s ethical responsibility when it comes to capital punishment stating, in part, that “as a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, a physician must not participate in a legally authorized execution.”
Of course, the correctional system in question could always find a doctor who doesn’t care about what the AMA says, or ethics, or anything like that. You know, the kind of doc who’s barely managed to hang on to his license and who would be happy to write you a scrip for, say, 100 Oxys, for $100. Cash.
It does seem that there’s always someone who will do it.
Having seen animals die, I really don’t think it takes a trained expert to determine death. Just don’t be too hasty putting the body in a casket, to be safe.
Perhaps not. But only a trained expert can sign a death certificate.
That’s fine. Most prisons have medical staff, and as mentioned above, i doubt many have ethical problems noting that a dead body it’s a dead body.
I believe a Doper is a physician at a prison.
I thought that a lot of the expertise needed by anesthesiologists was to make sure they don’t inadvertantly kill someone. I would guess that it takes a great deal less skill to kill someone than to keep them unconscious, but healthy, through surgery.
And the drugs used for physician assisted suicide are usually oral – the patient ordinarily indicates their intention to die by choosing to swallow them. I think they use seconol in Oregon. (Actually, Google tells me that the physician may prescribe whatever seems appropriate. But seconal, a barbiturate, is commonly used.) I suppose it takes some medical knowledge to know what dose is enough to kill this person, but i bet there are (or could be) charts. And actually administering the drug isn’t rocket science.
That’s how I understand the physician-assisted suicide laws in the US. I don’t think any states allow a physician to actually administer the drugs. The patient is prescribed the drugs, and the patient is required to self-administer them. I don’t know to what extent the patient’s family is allowed to actually assist - beyond bring the drug and a glass of water.
Assuming my understanding is correct, that would absolutely not work for an execution, as the prisoner could simply refuse to take the capsules - or pretend to and hide them under the tongue, or whatever.
I am of course against the death penalty. The “person I knew who was directly harmed” might well have me willing to make an exception in a specific case - but I don’t believe I could pull the trigger myself and I could not vote for someone else to have to do something I could not bring myself to do.
I also oppose executions. But i separately oppose cruel and unusual punishment. The “medical” executions we have now appear to be a bad parody of medically administered anesthesia, and seem quite cruel. I find it frustrating that not only does the state murder people, it does so in a ridiculously complex and cruel manner.
Here’s a NZ article about humanely killing sheep
What is described there could certainly be done to a prisoner. (Stun and possibly kill with a captive bolt, then immediately bleed the animal out to make sure.) Yes, blood is messy. But it’s quick and humane. Maybe the problem is that that really looks like killing, it doesn’t dress it up as if it were some medical procedure.
As stated in my link in post #104 above, only about 20% of doctors belong to the AMA.
A physician cannot directly administer the drugs; that would be euthanasia, not medically-assisted death.
The drug in question is typically loose powder dissolved in a small glass of water, to be drunk by the patient. The patient may receive assistance in ingesting this, but some sort of voluntary action is absolutely required on the part of the patient. If they can’t raise the glass to their lips, an assistant (family or otherwise) may do so, but the patient must voluntarily drink, either directly from the glass or via a straw. If the patient can’t swallow, the concoction may be administered from a syringe via a feeding tube to the patient’s stomach, but the patient has to operate the syringe themselves - either directly (with their own hands) or indirectly (e.g. by deliberately driving an electric wheelchair into a wall to push the syringe’s plunger. If the patient is unable to carry out some sort of voluntary physical action as the last link in the chain to ingest the drug, then AIUI they are not eligible for a medically-assisted death.
A legally qualified person will eventually be required after the fact to declare the patient has officially died. However, a doctor is not legally required to be present at a medically-assisted death.
There are of course logistical problems of applying such a method to an unwilling convict. However, with regard to the question of whether there’s a method of execution that could alleviate physical suffering, the drugs used for medically-assisted death seem like they achieve this goal and perhaps ought to be offered to those convicts willing to choose it.
Fundamentally, the problem with lethal injection is that the state wants to make execution look quiet and painless, like putting a dog to sleep or a person undergoing surgery, and that the appearance of quiet execution is more important than the execution being clean and painless. While there’s talk about minimizing cruelty, the underlying motive is clearly to reduce objection to the death penalty by making it look clinical, clean, and calm.
Hanging, firing squad and electrocution have not been condemned as Cruel and Unusual by the Supreme Court in the US and have a history of being used (and a few states have some of them as options), and things like the guillotine or animal-style slaughter also have not been specifically outlawed. But all of those have the problem that they look like you’re murdering someone, and most of them involve a lot of blood, so states don’t want to use them, since it would likely increase opposition to the death penalty.
Returning to the medical thing, we also have the issue that the companies that manufacture pharmaceuticals don’t want their legit life-helping products used for life-ending purposes.
As such, many manufacturers refuse to sell the stuff to states for the purpose of executions. Of course the state could lie about their intended use, but that only works once.
And for a process that’s supposed to be on the legal (if not moral) up-and-up, that sets a pretty evil precedent. Almost nothing good happens once governments, and especially the police/prison part of government, start lying deliberately.
Which is why I argued above that if we are determined to execute people then we should drop the pretense of medical and neat and simply admit we’re killing someone. Which can be done quickly and surely using tools & skills designed for killing, not tools & skills repurposed half-assedly hoping to kill.
The lie would constitute a felony, though, and the form submitted requires the signature of a licensed professional (MD, DMD, PhD, etc).
Sec. 1305.04 Persons entitled to order Schedule I and II controlled substances.
(a) Only persons who are registered with DEA under section 303 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 823) to handle Schedule I or II controlled substances, and persons who are registered with DEA under section 1008 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 958) to export these substances may obtain and use DEA Form 222 (order forms) or issue electronic orders for these substances. Persons not registered to handle Schedule I or II controlled substances and persons registered only to import controlled substances are not entitled to obtain Form 222 or issue electronic orders for these substances.
(b) An order for Schedule I or II controlled substances may be executed only on behalf of the registrant named on the order and only if his or her registration for the substances being purchased has not expired or been revoked or suspended.
As another poster mentioned, putting a dog to sleep is NOT always quiet and painless. We had a cat euthanized in our home, and the vet tried to get a vein in his paw; the poor cat was feeling wretched already, the attempted injection hurt, and he yowled (as did I, probably louder than the cat, it was horrifying to see my beloved pet being frightened and hurt). When we had a guinea pig euthanized, I was quoted one price if I waited downstairs and another, higher price if i wanted to be there. A discussion here on the Dope some time after that suggested that it was indeed because sometimes the animals do not react calmly to the process.
Speaking specifically of pets: we want to think that this final step is truly just “going to sleep” and we don’t want to think about how it is not always a peaceful transition.
I suspect the vast majority of people who are in support of lethal injection want to believe the same of a human execution - and are as dismayed as I was when first hearing that sometimes it does NOT go smoothly. I’ll grant that some people believe that the convict “deserves to suffer” but don’t actually want the ending to be any crueler than it has to be.
Until this thread, I had no idea that breathing a pure nitrogen atmosphere was that painless. I’d read of accidental asphyxiation, but never made the connection. An article on Oklahoma’s planning talks about a number of logistical issues including whether the prisoner is sedated, administration via mask or hood (vs filling a room with the gas), etc.
In that article, it notes that while most Oklahomans favor the death penalty, most of them ALSO would be OK with it being abolished as long as life without possibility of parole / restitution were involved.
To add a Looney Tunes touch, drop a giant anvil from a great height with the condemned holding a flimsy parasol.
For the record, ANY method is in my opinion morally wrong. Police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, juries, and judges are not infallible. Capital punishment makes it impossible to undo mistakes.
" Capital punishment makes it impossible to undo mistakes."
Agreed.