Quick medical (not ethical/moral) question on lethal injection

[surftheiop]

I read couple articles recently saying the current methods for lethal injection in fact caused alot of pain to many prisoners and went on to say there isnt much forseable way to improve the process.

So my question
Why cant they just put people down like they do for surgery and then do whatever needs to be done? cost?

As i said before, this has nothing to do with the merits of the death penalty.

[Rearden]

I do recall hearing about systems/states where they do knock the prison out with an initial injection before the second, lethal, injection... I'm not sure how widespread that is, etc. I imagine the cost difference is not bad at all.

[surftheiop]

Yeah the article talked about that but said that it had been paralyzing people instead of knocking them out. It seemed straightforward to me that they should just increase the dose but then they quote doctors as saying there is no way to improve the prodedure.

Here's the article for reference

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/24/BAGA7PE1RH1.DTL

[surftheiop]

Hmm after reading this the third time maybe the doctor just meant that no ethical medical doctor is going to help develop ways to kill people

[SNOWBALL]

The most humane way to kill me would be to stick a piece of dynamite in my mouth. I wouldn't feel a thing.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm after reading this the third time maybe the doctor just meant that no ethical medical doctor is going to help develop ways to kill people

[/ QUOTE ]

That is precisely the problem. Though it's 'nice' (I don't support the death penalty, btw) that doctors are at least discussing the inadequecy of the current method. Anesthesiology is a subtle business, but then, that's largely because you have to AVOID killing the patient. You would think they could manage to train people to do this correctly based on published medical literature.

It may also be that medical groups and doctors are generally opposed to this, so they are sort of aiding the attorneys groups involved in stopping the death penalty by just objecting to ANY procedure.

I think death penalty opponents see the 'cruel and unusual' route as the best inroad, but when it comes down to it, they are just advocates in their clients interest. If I had the choice, I'd choose firing squad myself.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hmm after reading this the third time maybe the doctor just meant that no ethical medical doctor is going to help develop ways to kill people

[/ QUOTE ]

That is precisely the problem. Though it's 'nice' (I don't support the death penalty, btw) that doctors are at least discussing the inadequecy of the current method. Anesthesiology is a subtle business, but then, that's largely because you have to AVOID killing the patient. You would think they could manage to train people to do this correctly based on published medical literature.

It may also be that medical groups and doctors are generally opposed to this, so they are sort of aiding the attorneys groups involved in stopping the death penalty by just objecting to ANY procedure.

I think death penalty opponents see the 'cruel and unusual' route as the best inroad, but when it comes down to it, they are just advocates in their clients interest. If I had the choice, I'd choose firing squad myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am opposed to the death penalty, but I would do this. Although I'm not sure exactly what most of the professional societies say about this, and that would impact my decision.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hmm after reading this the third time maybe the doctor just meant that no ethical medical doctor is going to help develop ways to kill people

[/ QUOTE ]

That is precisely the problem. Though it's 'nice' (I don't support the death penalty, btw) that doctors are at least discussing the inadequecy of the current method. Anesthesiology is a subtle business, but then, that's largely because you have to AVOID killing the patient. You would think they could manage to train people to do this correctly based on published medical literature.

It may also be that medical groups and doctors are generally opposed to this, so they are sort of aiding the attorneys groups involved in stopping the death penalty by just objecting to ANY procedure.

I think death penalty opponents see the 'cruel and unusual' route as the best inroad, but when it comes down to it, they are just advocates in their clients interest. If I had the choice, I'd choose firing squad myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am opposed to the death penalty, but I would do this. Although I'm not sure exactly what most of the professional societies say about this, and that would impact my decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

There must be some pretty serious consequences, because I can't believe that there aren't at least SOME doctors who are rabidly pro death penalty and would be happy to support the cause. Says something when California can't find a doctor to do the deed...

[Wyman]

I believe what happens is the following:

1. The condemned gets an injection of sodium thiopental. This knocks the condemned out, and should be no pain other than the prick of the needle.

Now they have to separately stop the heart and lungs
Ah, good, Wikipedia has the names.

2. Dose of "Pancuronium/Tubocurarine: to stop all muscle movement except the heart. This causes muscle paralysis, collapse of the diaphragm, and would eventually cause death by asphyxiation."

3. Does of "Potassium chloride: to stop the heart from beating, and thus cause death" in the form of cardiac arrest.

So, to OP, they _do_ put the victim down, as for surgery, but the lethal drugs that follow are the ones being questioned.

Here's my question. Ethics aside, why not use a firing squad? It would be much much much cheaper, and if you had 7 shooters put 4 rounds apiece into the condemned, he's going to die. Headshot. Done.

Even with some of them shooting blanks, which is a weird psychological death penalty aside in and of itself, the guy's going to die. Quickly, inexpensively, and not very painfully. In can't be any more nerve wracking than waiting for the chemicals to start once you're all IV'ed up.

[DLKeeper1]

Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath saying they will not harm a patient in any case...so basically registered doctors can't help kill someone

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath saying they will not harm a patient in any case...so basically registered doctors can't help kill someone

[/ QUOTE ]

I've taken the Hippocratic Oath. I do not understand my oath to prevent me from doing this. Of course, it depends on the version of the oath you look at (there are many). However, just to clear something up, it is most certainly not required that doctors take or abide by the Hippocratic Oath. Probably the majority of medical schools give the oath in some form, although most of them are modified, but there are some schools that definitely do not give it. Its not a requirement.

Just to be clear, the actual oath forbids surgery under any circumstances, and it makes it clear you cannot charge for medical education. There is nothing in there about euthenasia or the death penalty, although you could interpret "do no harm" along those lines if you are so inclined. I am not. Harm isn't digital, it is a continuum, and I interpret that to mean do the least amount of harm (sometimes known as 'good') as possible. Refusing to ease the suffering of a person being executed seems like doing a great deal of harm, to me. As is watching someone die in agony for days, weeks or months. I most certainly do not interpret my oath to prevent me from doing these things.

However, as mentioned earlier, it is entirely possible that the various professional societies have rules against this sort of thing, and it is probably not anything I would risk my career over.

[arahant]

a well-written NYT article on the subject: NYT - Doctors and the Death Penalty (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E01E6DF1430F933A2575 5C0A9629C8B63)

[vhawk01]

Relevant snippets from the article:

"The American Medical Association's ethics code, for instance, says that ''a physician, as a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, should not be a participant in a legally authorized execution.''

"But a survey of doctors in 2001 found that more than 40 percent would be willing to perform at least one of the forbidden activities. "