It's so hard to find a good anesthetist these days,

[Pure]

Execution Halted After Doctors Balk at Participation
Man Condemned to Die for Rape and Murder of Teen

By LISA LEFF, AP

{{Michael Morales was condemned to death for the 1981 rape and murder of a 17-year-old Terri Lynn Winchell.}}

SAN QUENTIN, Calif. (Feb. 21) - The execution of a condemned killer was postponed early Tuesday after two anesthesiologists refused for ethical reasons to take part, and attorneys pursued a new round of court challenges that could delay the execution indefinitely.

Michael Morales, 46, was supposed to die by lethal injection at 12:01 a.m. But the execution was put off until at least Tuesday night after the anesthesiologists objected that they might have to advise the executioner if the inmate woke up or appeared to suffer pain.

"Any such intervention would clearly be medically unethical," the doctors, whose identities were not released, said in a statement. "As a result, we have withdrawn from participation in this current process."

The doctors had been brought in by a federal judge after Morales' attorneys argued that the three-part lethal injection process violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The attorneys said a prisoner could feel excruciating pain from the last two chemicals if he were not fully sedated.

U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel gave prison officials a choice last week: bring in doctors to ensure Morales was properly anesthetized, or skip the usual paralyzing and heart-stopping drugs and execute him with an overdose of a sedative.

Prison officials planned to press forward with the execution Tuesday night using the second option.

The judge approved that decision later Tuesday, but said the sedative must be administered by a person who is licensed by the state to inject medications intravenously, a group that includes doctors, nurses and other medical technicians.

Morales' lawyers planned to appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and state officials said they were unsure whether they would proceed.

Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer, said prosecutors and prison officials were meeting to determine whether to go forward with the execution and "to consider other options."

The judge's ruling renewed an ethical debate that has persisted for many years about the proper role of doctors in executions and the suitability of the lethal injection method used in California and 35 other states.

The American Medical Association, the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the California Medical Association all opposed the anesthesiologists' participation as unethical and unprofessional.

The anesthesiologists ultimately withdrew after the judge wrote that they might have to demand that the executioner administer more sedatives through a separate intravenous line to make sure the prisoner is unconscious.

The anesthesiologists would have joined another doctor who is on duty at all California executions to declare the prisoner dead and ensure proper medical procedures are followed. The doctor does not insert any of the intravenous lines and is not in the room during the execution itself; typically the doctor watches the inmate's vital signs on electronic monitors outside the death chamber.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never [ruled on constitutionaliaty of lethal injection].

---

 

[3113]

I say we go back to the guillotine. That's suppose to be painless.

I mean, really. Either we've got a death penality and we put people to death, no qualms, or we decide that death, by just about any means, is a cruel and unusal punishment and we irradicate the death penalty.

My opinion--do it or don't do it, but stop futzing around! I'm not going to argue whether there should or shouldn't be a death penality, I just want all the futzing around to stop, one way or another.

 

[Huckleman2000]

My anesthetist is named LaVerne, and she works at the State Liquor Store in my town.

Also Lily, the checkout gal at the Safeway who knows me by name and doesn't bat an eye when I get the 1.5litre bottles of wine.

It's really just a matter of getting to know the neighborhood.

 

[Guest]

Like it or not, you take an oath when you get that M.D. after your name.
And, when you walk into the OR, do you really want to be "that guy"?

I say none of that as an opponent to this SOB dying; it's just the facts.

 

[rgraham666]

I'd simply settle for kneel the guy down and sticking a 9mm hollow point in his cranium. Nothing quicker and more painless than that.

Of course I'd also have the role of executioner filled by conscription, a draft.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I could understand the doctors' collective reasoning, though... the Hippocratic oath... "First do no harm." (which, actually, isn't technically in there, but why quibble with cultural belief? <grin>)

actually, it was probably just a "cover your ass" legal move. huh?

So much for my idealism...

 

[Guest]

Interestingly enough, "Do no harm" is actually a part of the Wiccan creed, if I'm remembering correctly. But, I would argue that it is there in "spirit." See below:

3. i. And I will use regimens for the benefit of the ill in accordance with my ability and my judgment, but from [what is] to their harm or injustice I will keep [them].

4. i. And I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked [for it],

CYA: it's the medical professional's creed. It's what remind one another of when we are reluctant to call the grumpy surgeon at 3 in the morning.

 

[matriarch]

I say we go back to the guillotine. That's suppose to be painless.

I mean, really. Either we've got a death penality and we put people to death, no qualms, or we decide that death, by just about any means, is a cruel and unusal punishment and we irradicate the death penalty.

My opinion--do it or don't do it, but stop futzing around! I'm not going to argue whether there should or shouldn't be a death penality, I just want all the futzing around to stop, one way or another.

'supposed to be painless'........perhaps you'd care to initiate a test run....just to make sure, you understand.

 

[Pure]

three questions:

does the guy have a right to a quick and painless death?

a) what is the drs' objection to the present procedure? b) would it apply to the 'overdose of sedatives' approach?

if the dr's have a professional-ethical objection, wouldn't nurses and other health professionals have a similar moral, if not professional-ethical objection.

-----
my answers:
1.Yes.
2b I suspect the 'overdose' procedure, if it involved direct participation, would also be objectionable to the drs.
3 I don't see why not. Leaving out the assisted suicide problem, surely anyone training in maintaining or preserving health is obliged not to actively use that training to mete out, or facilitate decreed death (as opposed to natural death, death from disease or trauma).

----
Hippocratic oath excerpts

classic version

I will apply [[dietetic measures]]{regimens} for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice. {www.pbs.org}

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.
-------
lasagna version-updated, used at several medical schools:

Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

 

[3113]

'supposed to be painless'........perhaps you'd care to initiate a test run....just to make sure, you understand.

Don't have to. Sever the neck fast enough and you sever all nerves from body to brain. How would any pain be possible? Of course, there is that nasty possiblity that the brain retains awareness for a few seconds afterwards, aware that it's been decapitated....that might be considered cruel and unusual.

 

[rgraham666]

Don't have to. Sever the neck fast enough and you sever all nerves from body to brain. How would any pain be possible? Of course, there is that nasty possiblity that the brain retains awareness for a few seconds afterwards, aware that it's been decapitated....that might be considered cruel and unusual.

It does. Not until the brain uses up the oxygen in the blood remaining in it does unconsciousness come. This takes about 20 to 30 seconds.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of phantom sensation as well, many amputees suffer this. Not that we'll get much information from a person who's been decapitated.

 

[3113]

Above all, I must not play at God.

From my perspective, that makes all Doctor's oath breakers. I mean, if we take illnesses as natural or as from God, then anyone who tries to heal them is playing God. And if a doctor recessitates someone who has "died," they're playing God. And they're completely sunk if they're helping infertile women have babies.

If they were really keeping to this last part of the oath, then all doctors should be doing is healing wounds and repairing broken bones.

Which is just to say, from my pov, that this last part of the oath is a crock. We want doctors to play God--with our written consent, of course. The problem, I think, has never been with doctors playing God. It's with the fact that doctors can't play God. We want them to be able to really, really, heal a person, or really, really put an end to their suffering. And for all modern medicine can do...it can't save or heal or end every one's suffering. It can't play God.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Firing squads, with blindfolds and cigarettes. That would be a GOOD use for tobacco (after all, who is worried about lung cancer when they are about to take a few bullets in their lungs). Besides, there is a certain dramatic value to having 6 guys aim their guns at you (plus the therapeutic value of the "dud" to the executioners).

 

[3113]

Firing squads, with blindfolds and cigarettes. That would be a GOOD use for tobacco (after all, who is worried about lung cancer when they are about to take a few bullets in their lungs). Besides, there is a certain dramatic value to having 6 guys aim their guns at you (plus the therapeutic value of the "dud" to the executioners).

AND there's no problem finding volunteers, as proved by Gary Gilmore.

 

[rgraham666]

The blank is why I want the role of executioner filled by conscription. And just a single bullet.

All our methods of doing someone in now are designed to deflect responsibility for that act. In the firing squad example everyone involved can tell themselves, "It probably wasn't me. I didn't actually kill anybody. I might have had the blank. Or I didn't hit anything vital. There were five other people. It wasn't really my doing."

If I kill someone, I want the blood on my hands, physically and metaphorically. If I kill, and I might someday in the right circumstances, I want to carry the burden for it. No lying to myself.

 

[Pure]

sev,

let's assume that lethal injection can be done painlessly (e.g. huge overdose of phenobarbital or morphine).

would you prefer that or firing squad, if you were to be executed?

 

[3113]

let's assume that lethal injection can be done painlessly (e.g. huge overdose of phenobarbital or morphine).

would you prefer that or firing squad, if you were to be executed?

Oh, Morphine, absolutely. I hear tell that it's wonderful.

 

[Pure]

3113,

I wasn't too impressed with the lasagna update either. Very vague.

There are a couple Geneva conventions and a British drs' code at Wikipedia-- all under Hippocratic Oath.

While I see a problem direcly helping or being an executioner, it's not easy to formulate a guideline for drs.

This is the closest I can come, off the top of my head. They are to work for the health and life of the patient (over its normal span), avoiding harming or killing him or bringing about his death;---any exceptions are to be based solely on the patient's interests and/or quality of life, and where possible upon consent.

Some possible exceptions:
he may avoid 'extrarordinary measures' to allow a death to proceed.
he may upon repeated, continued request , aid someone in great pain or in a terminal condition in killing themselves.

PS: Morphine is great; have had it after a couple operations!

 

[Kev H]

Anyone who has been put under for surgery knows without a doubt that it is painless and gentle to slip into unconsciousness. With an overdose, they simply would never regain consciousness.

I have had two surgeries where I had to go under (hopefully I have met my quota for this life), and I am was very scared/hyper/observant/analytical, especialy on the first one (I was only 12 at the time and nervous beyond belief - a mower had just freakishly thrown a rusty piece of wire into my leg, where it lodged in the smaller of the 2 bones near my ankle). The normal laughing gas only made me foggy, but they saw I was still conscious and gave me an injection. The -only- thing I felt before unconsciousness was the taste of onions (which I hate) in my mouth.

There would be no difference with an execution, and anyone who cries otherwise is simply lying to stall/complicate a very simple issue (or continue their fight for no death penalty).

 

[3113]

This is the closest I can come, off the top of my head. They are to work for the health of the patient, avoiding harming or killing him or bringing about his death;---any exceptions are to be based solely on the patient's interests and/or quality of life, and where possible upon consent.

Okay. That works for me. Sound like common sense...which I think is the best any doctor can do under any circumstances, and most especially given what medicine and machines can now do.

 

[rgraham666]

I will re-iterate my reasons for opposing capital punishment yet again.

1. You cannot fix mistakes.

2. It will not be carried out fairly.

3. It is generally used for political purposes, not judicial ones.

 

[Kev H]

I will re-iterate my reasons for opposing capital punishment yet again.

1. You cannot fix mistakes.

2. It will not be carried out fairly.

3. It is generally used for political purposes, not judicial ones.

I can completely respect that opinion, until you pull some stunt to delay the inevitable, undermining the majority's legislation/opinions to advance your personal ideas. (Not talking to you personally, of course; I am making the assumption that the real reason behind this delay is the doctors feel as you do, and it has nothing to do with the philosophy of their job, but then grabbing a chance to exert their personal feelings over the majority.)

 

[Selena_Kitt]

The blank is why I want the role of executioner filled by conscription. And just a single bullet.

All our methods of doing someone in now are designed to deflect responsibility for that act. In the firing squad example everyone involved can tell themselves, "It probably wasn't me. I didn't actually kill anybody. I might have had the blank. Or I didn't hit anything vital. There were five other people. It wasn't really my doing."

If I kill someone, I want the blood on my hands, physically and metaphorically. If I kill, and I might someday in the right circumstances, I want to carry the burden for it. No lying to myself.

WOW, Rob.

I wholeheartedly agree...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

California. The ganola state. Them that ain't fruits or nuts are flakes.

 

[Pure]

RG: If I kill someone, I want the blood on my hands, physically and metaphorically. If I kill, and I might someday in the right circumstances, I want to carry the burden for it. No lying to myself.

P:I believe this has something in common with the approach: if you're going to have executions, let them be done in the public square and with full TV coverage.

Both aim to involve people in the procedure.

-----
P: rg: I will re-iterate my reasons for opposing capital punishment yet again.

1. You cannot fix mistakes.

2. It will not be carried out fairly.

3. It is generally used for political purposes, not judicial ones.

Sounds curiously beside the point. Like saying "I don't eat chicken because it's rarely fresh and never 'free range.'

Regarding the above, why not say, one does not (is morally obliged not to) kill except to prevent serious harm or death to one's family, community, and (the people of one's) country.