Doctors and the Death Penalty!

[searun]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I was just watching a segment on PBS tonight about the death penalty and the recent botched execution in Florida. It seems that states with the death penalty are having difficulty recruiting doctors to administer lethal injections and that the process of executing prisoners is being administered by prison guards who are not physicians. Apparently there are numerous examples of executions that have been screwed up by non medical folks. So would you volunteer to execute your neighborhood serial killer?

 

[PhantomfanMD]

I was just watching a segment on PBS tonight about the death penalty and the recent botched execution in Florida. It seems that states with the death penalty are having difficulty recruiting doctors to administer lethal injections and that the process of executing prisoners is being administered by prison guards who are not physicians. Apparently there are numerous examples of executions that have been screwed up by non medical folks. So would you volunteer to execute your neighborhood serial killer?

why should a physician have to execute a murderer? It doesn't take a physician to figure out that high amounts of KCl will stop a heart. Also, as a future physician there is no way I could carry out an execution since by then I'll have taken the Hipocratic Oath that says physicians are to do no harm.

 

[MedvacMoney]

why should a physician have to execute a murderer? It doesn't take a physician to figure out that high amounts of KCl will stop a heart. Also, as a future physician there is no way I could carry out an execution since by then I'll have taken the Hipocratic Oath that says physicians are to do no harm.

THEY TOOK that out in the states where death penalty is legal!😴

 

[braluk]

On the flip side of that, you could also be doing harm by not using your skills to make sure the process goes through smoothly. The man will die, thats without question. The issue lies in the question if you are doing harm by letting prisoners perform a task that should be done by a physician (botched execution as an example). (this is also hearsay, but Ive heard this debated at interviews in medical school).

If they cant find doctors, look for phlebotomists.

 

[jtorres]

yes i agree with you, i dont see myself executing someone else either specially since i want to be in this profession to help others. but as a physician it is your obligation to improve the lot of others, even if it means administering a shot of KCl. no matter what diaz may have done in the past he did not deserve to die in agony that way. the state should not sponsor that kind of death. i would hesitantly perform such procedure if it meant that the condemmed would die accordingly rather than watch some prison guard botch the procedure. just my two cents.

 

[112258]

yes i agree with you, i dont see myself executing someone else either specially since i want to be in this profession to help others. but as a physician it is your obligation to improve the lot of others, even if it means administering a shot of KCl. no matter what diaz may have done in the past he did not deserve to die in agony that way. the state should not sponsor that kind of death. i would hesitantly perform such procedure if it meant that the condemmed would die accordingly rather than watch some prison guard botch the procedure. just my two cents.

I'm not so sure if I would do it, but I'm definitely sure that I don't feel sorry for a man who only suffered a possibly painful death due to his own choice of killing someone....

 

[PhantomfanMD]

I think Physicians should stay out of executions. There are others out there who aren't physicians that are just as capable of killing someone with drugs and doing so humanely...maybe someone with a Ph.D. in Human Biology.

 

[DeadCactus]

Probably not. I would have no problem taking someones life who is an active threat, even after taking the oath. But while I am not against the death penalty, playing executioner doesn't mix well with being a doctor in my opinion.

As for the lack of physicians: I can't say I would lose much sleep because a few felons have a painful death because Doctors don't want to execute them. I don't believe in the lethal injection thing anyway. We need to go back to a bullet or two in the back of the head and be done with it. Death shouldn't be made politically correct; it detracts from it and makes people far to comfortable with it...

 

[braluk]

I got this question from an experienced mock interviewer on an adcom, im curious how you guys would answer:

Say you were a general surgeon out in Iraq and your son was on the grounds as a private. Your son was killed, but those who killed him have been taken prisoner . As you operate on these prisoners, you find out that the very person you are about to cut into, is the same guy who killed your son. What do you in this situation?

 

[kypdurron5]

I was just watching a segment on PBS tonight about the death penalty and the recent botched execution in Florida. It seems that states with the death penalty are having difficulty recruiting doctors to administer lethal injections and that the process of executing prisoners is being administered by prison guards who are not physicians. Apparently there are numerous examples of executions that have been screwed up by non medical folks. So would you volunteer to execute your neighborhood serial killer?

It wasn't a botched execution; they simply had to administer a second dose and they knew in advance that they might have to do it because of his liver condition. When you say "botched execution" it sounds like he was electrocuted, caught on fire, and still didn't die. Yes, it took him longer to die than normal, but we're talking about how long it took to "put him to sleep," not how long it took him to burn to death or bleed out. In addition, the executioners in this case WERE medical personnel, they just were not doctors. While this could make a difference in some cases, it did not affect the outcome of the most recent event.

I thought it was funny that during a recent interview with a European two people were discussing anti-Americanism. The interviewer assumed that political differences/the ware in Iraq would have caused the greatest angst. The European woman said that where she comes from (a town in Belgium) their biggest problem with the US is the death penalty. In many ways I understand this. There ARE violent crimes in small European towns, but it doesn't come close to the heinous acts that we have every year in the United States. When something crazy happens (like a full-family slaughter) they can afford to have sympathy for the murderer and chalk it up to a psychological problem that requires rehabilitation. They don't need the kind of stiff deterrent that the death penalty provides because stuff like that just doesn't happen all that often. If we did not need the death penalty I think everyone the in US would be happy to do away with it. Can you imagine the difference it would make were the death penalty abolished? Now criminals who commit crimes for which they expect to face life in prison have no reason not to take it one more step. Life is life. Even long sub-life sentences carry similar implications; why not just go all the way and kill as well? Obviously my opinion is clear, and what I've said is debatable, but I think I have a fairly reasonable viewpoint even if I do have a bias inherent in all mankind.

 

[braluk]

If they do make lethal injections humane, I dont understand why they don't just put the prisoner asleep first anesthetically (i.e. like in surgery), then inject the muscle paralyzers and then KCL? Or they could always let them be roundhoused by Chuck Norris. Both methods end lives without much question about the PC nature of it.

 

[braluk]

The Medical examiner had stated that his liver "damage" or to whatever extent it was, had no bearing on the metabolism of the lethal injection drugs, and thus, subtly suggested it was a botched execution (or so I think i remember reading on CNN)

EDIT: heres the excerpt

Needles that were supposed to inject drugs into the 55-year-old man's veins were instead pushed all the way through the blood vessels into surrounding soft tissue. A medical examiner said he had chemical burns on both arms.

"It really sounds like he was tortured to death," said Jonathan Groner, associate professor of surgery at the Ohio State Medical School, a surgeon who opposes the death penalty and writes frequently about lethal injection. "My impression is that it would cause an extreme amount of pain."

and the link
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/18/diaz.execution.ap/index.html


So theres no question about his liver having any effect on this whatsoever. It was botched. Simply stated, the needle missed its target. Sorry I digress. The question remains- would you have done it yourself if it meant that this whole fiasco would be avoided altogether?

 

[kypdurron5]

The Medical examiner had stated that his liver "damage" or to whatever extent it was, had no bearing on the metabolism of the lethal injection drugs, and thus, subtly suggested it was a botched execution (or so I think i remember reading on CNN)

Hrrm. I don't doubt what you're saying, but that just doesn't make sense. The liver thing explains it perfectly. How else could it have been "botched?" The only thing I can think of is that maybe the IV didn't go in properly. Aside from that it's not like they could have just "forgotten" something....

 

[braluk]

The medical examiner reported the chemical burns in the soft tissue around the point of injection as a result of the needle completely missing the veins and instead going right into soft tissue. The chemicals then slowly tortured the prisoner until the second lethal dose was administered properly into the veins, where it THEN did what it was suppsoed to do (not because it was liver damage that slowed down the execution process, but because the injection was faultily made in the first place). I would probably consider that a botched execution I guess. *shrug*

 

[kypdurron5]

The medical examiner reported the chemical burns in the soft tissue around the point of injection as a result of the needle completely missing the veins and instead going right into soft tissue. The chemicals then slowly tortured the prisoner until the second lethal dose was administered properly into the veins, where it THEN did what it was suppsoed to do (not because it was liver damage that slowed down the execution process, but because the injection was faultily made in the first place). I would probably consider that a botched execution I guess. *shrug*

Fair enough, but I would take umbrage with the words "slowly tortured the prisoner." From what I've read he exhibited absolutely no signs of being in pain.

 

[braluk]

Maybe so, but from that same article I posted above,
"However, witnesses reported Diaz was moving as long as 24 minutes after the first injection, including grimacing, blinking, licking his lips, blowing and attempting to mouth words."

Idk if you would consider those signs as painful or not, but thats up to the medical examiner to describe. However, this is far from the point of the thread, about taking a role in executions or not, if it means that these mishaps do not occur again. Or would you be doing a disservice to your license by killing him anyway.

 

[Oculus Sinistra]

On the flip side of that, you could also be doing harm by not using your skills to make sure the process goes through smoothly. The man will die, thats without question. The issue lies in the question if you are doing harm by letting prisoners perform a task that should be done by a physician (botched execution as an example). (this is also hearsay, but Ive heard this debated at interviews in medical school).

I'm always amused by the notion that we should be careful not to harm an inidividual right before administering a lethal injection to kill them.

Physicians treating people in clinics and hospitals are concerned with not causing pain to a patient because -- outside of malpractice and ethical reasons -- they hope the patient will live afterward. You become a physician to improve or outright save the lives of patients.

When you get into prison execution scenarios, this mindset obviously doesn't apply. Even if you prevent the suffering, you still cause death.

 

[twohearted]

If they do make lethal injections humane, I dont understand why they don't just put the prisoner asleep first anesthetically (i.e. like in surgery), then inject the muscle paralyzers and then KCL? Or they could always let them be roundhoused by Chuck Norris. Both methods end lives without much question about the PC nature of it.

Chuck Norris seems to be the only method discussed in which one could be sure that the execution would not be botched.

 

[kypdurron5]

Maybe so, but from that same article I posted above,
"However, witnesses reported Diaz was moving as long as 24 minutes after the first injection, including grimacing, blinking, licking his lips, blowing and attempting to mouth words."

Idk if you would consider those signs as painful or not, but thats up to the medical examiner to describe. However, this is far from the point of the thread, about taking a role in executions or not, if it means that these mishaps do not occur again. Or would you be doing a disservice to your license by killing him anyway.

Well, I think in the end it comes down to a personal choice. The idea that "he's going to be killed anyway so I might as well be the one to do it" could be used to justify almost anything. If the law (one day) says a doctor must perform the procedure and not a single doctor is willing to do it, then theoretically you could prevent it from happening. It's kind of like the "everybody's doing it" excuse. At some point you have to decide for yourself what you will and will not do. What if you were a German scientist during World War II? You might say that if you don't perform experiments on living subjects someone else will...after all, it's "legal" under the law. You either have a moral objection to it or you don't; the same thing applies to the death penalty and even abortion. I also think it's funny how many pro-choicers also happen to be anti-death penalty and how many pro-lifers tend to be pro-death penalty. It's a bit of a paradox but it makes a certain amount of sense.

 

[Towelie]

They don't need the kind of stiff deterrent that the death penalty provides because stuff like that just doesn't happen all that often. If we did not need the death penalty I think everyone the in US would be happy to do away with it. Can you imagine the difference it would make were the death penalty abolished? Now criminals who commit crimes for which they expect to face life in prison have no reason not to take it one more step. Life is life. Even long sub-life sentences carry similar implications; why not just go all the way and kill as well? Obviously my opinion is clear, and what I've said is debatable, but I think I have a fairly reasonable viewpoint even if I do have a bias inherent in all mankind.

This is not a very reasonable viewpoint. There is not one shred of evidence that the death penalty provides any deterrent to capital crimes. Quite the contrary: in states in which a moratorium has been placed on the death penalty, capital crime rates have never risen. Do you really think that a murderer, about to pull the trigger, would stop out of fear of the death penalty? Seriously?

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

It's actually against AMA policy to assist in executions. This includes monitoring vitals and pronouncing death. The only thing they can do is certify the death after it has been pronounced.

Most states offer exemptions from the licensing board for physicians to participate in the executions, though, in fact, some states require the presence of a physician there.

There are 3 injections: an anesthetic, a paralytic, and the KCl to stop the heart. The idea is that the "patient" is asleep and paralyzed when their heart stops. Problems happen if the anesthetic wears off/doesn't take affect, because then the "patient" might be conscious but paralyzed when their heart stops.

Many people make the argument of easing the "patient's" pain, but the question regarding the role of doctors is a lot a matter of consent. Is this a "patient" that has chosen your services? It seems extremely unlikely. Clearly, though, the issue is still very much at debate.

 

[kypdurron5]

This is not a very reasonable viewpoint. There is not one shred of evidence that the death penalty provides any deterrent to capital crimes. Quite the contrary: in states in which a moratorium has been placed on the death penalty, capital crime rates have never risen. Do you really think that a murderer, about to pull the trigger, would stop out of fear of the death penalty? Seriously?

Not a reasonable viewpoint? Lol. Any viewpoint is reasonable, it just depends on one's reasoning. Since we're both reasonable people, I respect your views if even if they do not conform to reality; even that would not make them unreasonable. The answer to your final question is yes, I do. Let me first point out that your question is biased. You said "Do you really think that a murderer, about to pull the trigger..." Your very question insinuates that the criminal is a murderer before he has even committed the murder. I realize that it may have just been a slip of the keyboard, but this is actually an important point. I believe that we all have the capacity to commit murder at any time. The only difference between a murderer and a law-abiding citizen is that one has actually committed a murder and the other one could do so at any moment. Do I believe that the death penalty provides a deterrent for some (a few, many, or perhaps even most) criminals? Absolutely! I'm not saying that this is universally the case, and since it's a difficult subject to study for a plethora of reasons it can't be proven to be effective OR ineffective, but that's why this is such a subjective issue. The only unreasonable viewpoint is to only have a single viewpoint on this issue.

 

[notdeadyet]

THEY TOOK that out in the states where death penalty is legal!😴

Medvac, where do you get all this stuff from? That's completely incorrect. The Oath is not modified from state to state.

It's the AMA that prevents physicians from executing. Some states permit this, but many do not.

You are not required as a physician to take the Hipocratic Oath. If you plan on assisting in executions, please do not take it. It's an integrity thing.

I do find it ironic that there are states that forbid doctors in helping moribund patients who wish to end their life, but have no problem with doctors helping end the life of prisoners who do not wish to die. Editorializing...

 

[8744]

why should a physician have to execute a murderer? It doesn't take a physician to figure out that high amounts of KCl will stop a heart. Also, as a future physician there is no way I could carry out an execution since by then I'll have taken the Hipocratic Oath that says physicians are to do no harm.

The Hippocratic Oath also says you can't perform abortions or remove kidney stones as well as a bunch of other stuff that is left in or removed to satisfy the current political climate.

 

[notdeadyet]

Do I believe that the death penalty provides a deterrent for some (a few, many, or perhaps even most) criminals? Absolutely! I'm not saying that this is universally the case, and since it's a difficult subject to study for a plethora of reasons it can't be proven to be effective OR ineffective, but that's why this is such a subjective issue.

With all due respect, it's not subjective. There is data out there. Feel free to google. The death penalty has not proven to be a deterrent in any study. States that inacted the death penalty saw no change in capital crimes in any way.

Folks have a tough time getting their head around this. I don't shoot someone thinking, "Well, I'll only get life in prison..." I shoot them without thinking of the consequence. As such, the actual sentencing does not come up, heat of the moment.

There are a lot of good arguments for the death penalty, but deterrence is not one of them. The individual you execute will never kill again. But the existence of the death penalty won't give folks about to murder any pause at all.

 

[8744]

Medvac, where do you get all this stuff from? That's completely incorrect. The Oath is not modified from state to state.

It's the AMA that prevents physicians from executing. Some states permit this, but many do not.

You are not required as a physician to take the Hipocratic Oath. If you plan on assisting in executions, please do not take it. It's an integrity thing.

I do find it ironic that there are states that forbid doctors in helping moribund patients who wish to end their life, but have no problem with doctors helping end the life of prisoners who do not wish to die. Editorializing...

The AMA is a lobbying group and has no punitive or regulatory powers. I'm not a member of the AMA myself so they can pound sand.

The Hippocratic oath is and has been heavily modified on a school to school basis so as not to offend modern sensibilities. It is as meaningless as any other oath sworn by people who don't really beleive in oaths.

 

[notdeadyet]

The Hippocratic Oath also says you can't perform abortions or remove kidney stones as well as a bunch of other stuff that is left in or removed to satisfy the current political climate.

Yes, much like the constitution...

 

[notdeadyet]

The AMA is a lobbying group and has no punitive or regulatory powers. I'm not a member of the AMA myself so they can pound sand.

Agreed. If you're not a member, you have no responsibility to follow their requirements.

[The Hippocratic oath] is as meaningless as any other oath sworn by people who don't really beleive in oaths.

Yes. An oath you don't believe in doesn't mean anything. Whether you're enlisting in the military, swearing to tell the truth before a judge or taking the Hippocratic Oath. You're as good as your word. If your word is no good, the oath means nothing.

 

[Towelie]

Not a reasonable viewpoint? Lol. Any viewpoint is reasonable, it just depends on one's reasoning. Since we're both reasonable people, I respect your views if even if they do not conform to reality; even that would not make them unreasonable. The answer to your final question is yes, I do. Let me first point out that your question is biased. You said "Do you really think that a murderer, about to pull the trigger..." Your very question insinuates that the criminal is a murderer before he has even committed the murder. I realize that it may have just been a slip of the keyboard, but this is actually an important point. I believe that we all have the capacity to commit murder at any time. The only difference between a murderer and a law-abiding citizen is that one has actually committed a murder and the other one could do so at any moment. Do I believe that the death penalty provides a deterrent for some (a few, many, or perhaps even most) criminals? Absolutely! I'm not saying that this is universally the case, and since it's a difficult subject to study for a plethora of reasons it can't be proven to be effective OR ineffective, but that's why this is such a subjective issue. The only unreasonable viewpoint is to only have a single viewpoint on this issue.

Your argument is not agreeable to sound judgment, therefore it is not reasonable. As another poster noted, there is no evidence that the death penalty provides a deterrent. There is, however, a ton of evidence that the death penalty endangers innocent lives. Several cases have been outlined in which innocent people have been executed, and several states have placed a moratorium on executions because of a large number of innocent individuals being put on death row (Illinois is a disturbing example of this, where over 10 innocent people in 12 years were at once point sentenced to death).

If you want to argue that murderers deserve to die as punishment, while I would disagree with you, at least your argument would be reasonable. However, your groundless argument that the death penalty deters crime makes very little sense.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

With all due respect, it's not subjective. There is data out there. Feel free to google. The death penalty has not proven to be a deterrent in any study. States that inacted the death penalty saw no change in capital crimes in any way.

Folks have a tough time getting their head around this. I don't shoot someone thinking, "Well, I'll only get life in prison..." I shoot them without thinking of the consequence. As such, the actual sentencing does not come up, heat of the moment.

There are a lot of good arguments for the death penalty, but deterrence is not one of them. The individual you execute will never kill again. But the existence of the death penalty won't give folks about to murder any pause at all.

There is lots of data supporting both sides of the issue (as usual.) The undisputed data is that in states that actually use the death penalty (like the state in which I reside,) the "deterrent" is that after the criminal is executed, that is one less sick f*** that will be out on the streets killing people. Before you respond with, "but life imprisonment would prevent that too," realize that few criminals are truly imprisoned for life. IMHO the realities of the current penal system make the death penalty a necessity.

When the penal system is reformed such that murderers actually do spend the rest of their life in and die in prison, come back and talk to me about abolishing the death penalty and maybe I'll be more receptive.

Regardless, I think it's a pretty bad idea to take part in executions as a doctor. If lethal injection requires a doctor to evaluate the inmate to allow proper dosages, etc, perhaps it is not really a viable method of execution. Doctors shouldn't be wasting their time with this stuff when there are plenty of living patients that require their care.

 

[notdeadyet]

The undisputed data is that in states that actually use the death penalty (like the state in which I reside,) the "deterrent" is that after the criminal is executed, that is one less sick f*** that will be out on the streets killing people.

When folks say "deterrent", they're referring to others not on the chopping block. It doesn't deter. But it stops the prisoner from doing it again, no doubt about that.

Again, I have no problem with folks supporting the death penalty using the argument that it's the only sure-fire way that the person will never commit crimes again. But pretending the program itself deters others is fantasy.

 

[kypdurron5]

With all due respect, it's not subjective. There is data out there. Feel free to google. The death penalty has not proven to be a deterrent in any study. States that inacted the death penalty saw no change in capital crimes in any way.

Folks have a tough time getting their head around this. I don't shoot someone thinking, "Well, I'll only get life in prison..." I shoot them without thinking of the consequence. As such, the actual sentencing does not come up, heat of the moment.

There are a lot of good arguments for the death penalty, but deterrence is not one of them. The individual you execute will never kill again. But the existence of the death penalty won't give folks about to murder any pause at all.

There is hard data out there to support BOTH viewpoints, feel free to Google it. You're trying to tell us that this is not a subjective issue and yet you fill your post with subjective, universal statements. No one ever said that the death penalty is a deterrent for every single heat of the moment homicide out there; obviously that's not true since these crimes do occur. In fact, this kind of murder is not even eligible for the death penalty; premeditation is a requirement. So no, I'm not saying that the death penalty is a deterrent to someone who did not previously intend to commit the murder and who is the process of making a high-stress, spur-of-the-moment decision; they won't get the death penalty either way, how COULD it be a deterrent?! I AM saying that a man may think twice about planning to kill his wife if he knows he might loose his life as well. If the alternative is "only" prison, maybe the risk of getting caught is worth it to him. In fact, I'm willing to GUARANTEE you that the death penalty has been a deterrent for some people in the history of this planet; you can't disagree with that! It's fine if you want to subjectively pull the "data" that best supports your subjective views, but don't try to tell me that there is some universal truth about the efficacy of the death penalty as a deterrent to premeditated murder.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

When folks say "deterrent", they're referring to others not on the chopping block. It doesn't deter. But it stops the prisoner from doing it again, no doubt about that.

Again, I have no problem with folks supporting the death penalty using the argument that it's the only sure-fire way that the person will never commit crimes again. But pretending the program itself deters others is fantasy.

That is why I put deterrent in quotes, as it wasn't really the proper term, but is somewhat correct in that the potential for future crimes to be committed is reduced. But, I'm not going to argue over semantics -- I think we understand each other.

As for the data that shows whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent in the true sense, it changes from year to year, region to region, etc, and is difficult to evaluate because (despite what the media says/implies) the reality of the situation is that crime (esp. violent crime) is declining steadily throughout the country. Can this be attributed to the death penalty? To education? To the "war on drugs?" To manipulation of statistics? To better race realtions? To the phaseout of leaded gasoline 30 years ago? To republicans in government? To democrats in government? To aliens in Area 51 controlling the government through the Majestic 12? Everyone is just guessing anyway -- no one really knows. I'll readily grant you that whether the death penalty is a deterrent in the true sense of the word is very questionable.

Anyways, I'm not sure why I felt the need to follow-up, because I think we understand each other's viewpoint, but I wrote this all out so I might as well just hit post now.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

I have no problem executing criminals. In fact, I'd be first in line to put the needle in their arm even though I believe we should go back to punishing them- I see nothing wrong with burning at the stake or crucifixion....give them some time to understand what it's like to suffer before you die.

I say speed up the process- two appeals and then you are sent to the express lane for rapid disposal....actually if there's DNA evidence, you should not even get an appeal. Increase the number of punishable offenses to include rape and child molestation just to make sure we get rid of a few more respectable members of our community who some believe are worthy of our sympathy.

rather than watch some prison guard botch the procedure. just my two cents.

By the way, most states (and the federal government) use paramedics to establish the IV's.

 

[KaraKiz]

1. Doctors are not supposed to harm, which I believe includes murder, regardless of the debate on whether a criminal deserves it. I agree with notdeadyet, its an integrity thing. I also don't think it would be fair to ask a dentist, EMT, nurse, or PA to do it either. Can it really be it that hard to train someone willing to do it, be it prison guard or anyone else, to use a needle correctly? If the guy being put to death was a serial child rapist, I'm sure you'd have no shortage of volunteers...

As far as the death penalty not being an effective deterrent, I think if we are willing to kill people to set an example for others, we are going at it for the wrong reason. A person who willingly murdered deserves to be murdered. Its moral retribution. If everyone who killed with an intent to kill (not in self defense or any of the other 800 exceptions) KNEW they would be executed if convicted, I can't see how that wouldn't deter people.

As opposed to "You MIGHT be executed if you murdered several people or did it in a horrible way, but even then, you'd might just spend a long time in jail. Murderers are RELEASED from jail every day. Doesn't this bother anyone??

2. Moving on from the discussion on if it the death penalty is even ethical or fair, there are other ways to kill people. Like Chris Rock says, stabbing don't cost a damn thing.. (kidding about that last part, I am not actually suggesting we put prisoners in a "stabbing chair")

But seriously, am I the only one who doesn't really care if a serial killer "suffers" while he is dying? GOOD. He is LUCKY he is not getting stoned to death, or crucified, or disembowled. People who have done less have suffered worse. He probably LIVED for another 8-10 years on DEATH row (maybe with cable TV too).. is this counter-intuitive to anyone else but me? Does it really take 10 years to look at the evidence again and make sure we didn't screw up?

All in all, there are so many inherent problems with our judicial process that this really seems like a drop in the bucket.. I'll get off my soapbox now.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

If the guy being put to death was a serial child rapist, I'm sure you'd have no shortage of volunteers...

ME! Pick me! MEEEEEEEEEEE! *jumps up and down on one foot while waving his arms in the air*

 

[Towelie]

I AM saying that a man may think twice about planning to kill his wife if he knows he might loose his life as well. If the alternative is "only" prison, maybe the risk of getting caught is worth it to him.

I doubt that pre-meditated murderers would care about the distinction between life without parole and the death penalty; in fact, I would be willing to bet that most would PREFER the death penalty to life in a cell with no chance of leaving.

Obviously nobody is going to be able to change your mind. Just know that you don't make much logical sense. You denounce "universal" statements, and then you write this:

In fact, I'm willing to GUARANTEE you that the death penalty has been a deterrent for some people in the history of this planet; you can't disagree with that!

Sounds pretty "universal," no?

I've googled it, and I can't seem to find anything to support your "deterrent" theory. I just keep finding sites about innocent people who were on death row...

 

[premedgirl07]

why should a physician have to execute a murderer? It doesn't take a physician to figure out that high amounts of KCl will stop a heart. Also, as a future physician there is no way I could carry out an execution since by then I'll have taken the Hipocratic Oath that says physicians are to do no harm.

Good. I'm glad we have physicians like you.

Abortion is also murder, and any physician who performs an abortion is a murderer, and should lose their medical license.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Good. I'm glad we have physicians like you.

Abortion is also murder, and any physician who performs an abortion is a murderer, and should lose their medical license.

Oh Christ......here we go.

 

[Towelie]

Good. I'm glad we have physicians like you.

Abortion is also murder, and any physician who performs an abortion is a murderer, and should lose their medical license.

Men who masturbate are also murderers, because they're flushing potential lives down the toilet.

 

[KaraKiz]

ME! Pick me! MEEEEEEEEEEE! *jumps up and down on one foot while waving his arms in the air*

You know I had you in mind when penning that line.. 😀

 

[DropkickMurphy]

You know I had you in mind when penning that line.. 😀

Yay!

 

[8744]

Yes, much like the constitution...

It's pretty hard to change the Constitution as it requires a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of congress as well as ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures. Changing the Hippocratic Oath only requires one politically correct faculty member on the "White Coat Ceremony" comittee.

Let's not be silly.

The Hippocratic Oath is meaningless and is neither enforcable nor binding. I'm not swearing anything to an ancient Greek god, whatever the case.

The "Oath of Service" in the military, marriage vows, and contractual agreements are all legally binding and carry penelties for violation.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Men who masturbate are also murderers, because they're flushing potential lives down the toilet.

 

[notdeadyet]

The Hippocratic Oath is meaningless and is neither enforcable nor binding.

Correct. It is not legally binding. You're taking a verbal oath, so by definition, it's just your word. If folks don't intend to follow it, they shouldn't raise there hand and say it. I have no problem with that.

The "Oath of Service" in the military, marriage vows, and contractual agreements are all legally binding and carry penelties for violation.

Not really. The raising of your hand when you take the oath in the military is not binding, nor are your marraige vows. Like the Hippocratic Oath, they are you pledging your word. Whether you follow it or not is an integrity thing. It's your enlistment papers where you sign off your rights to Uncle Sam or your marraige license (where you sign 'em off to your bride) that make them legally binding.

 

[8744]

Correct. It is not legally binding. You're taking a verbal oath, so by definition, it's just your word. If folks don't intend to follow it, they shouldn't raise there hand and say it. I have no problem with that.


Not really. The raising of your hand when you take the oath in the military is not binding, nor are your marraige vows. Like the Hippocratic Oath, they are you pledging your word. Whether you follow it or not is an integrity thing. It's your enlistment papers where you sign off your rights to Uncle Sam or your marraige license (where you sign 'em off to your bride) that make them legally binding.

No. The oath is binding. Or to put it this way, if you are not charged under the UCMJ for breach of contract if you violate it. The enlistment contract is a verification that you have taken the Oath of Service, at least it was in my day. The oath's the thing. The rest is paperwork. No oath, no enlistment. In fact, three people "backed out" when I enlisted because they changed their mind at the last minute after it was explained that the oath of service was legally binding and if anybody didn't want to take it now was the time to speak up. It's the same reason that when you swear to tell the truth in a court you can be charged and imprisoned for violating that oath.

Marriage vows are binding because if you break them, it can be actionable to the extent that your wife can get your chilldren and half of what you own.

Besides, marriage vows and military oaths are pretty important things in the the big picture. You need to make some kind of explicit comittment to be married or to serve in the military, something you do not have to do to graduate medical school. There is no "Took Hippocratic Oath" check box on your transcripts. I didn't recite the oath because, like I said, I don't swear oaths in the name of Ancient Greek Gods and I think the Hippocratic Oath is stupid. As if we need to take an oath to take care of our patients and "first, do no harm." (Something I saw violated every day in the ICU, by the way).

 

[8744]

And I'd execute a murderer for the same reason that I'd put down a rabid dog.

Jeffrey Daumer, John Wayne Gacy, and Ted Bundy were nothing but rabid dogs.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

And I'd execute a murderer for the same reason that I'd put down a rabid dog.

Jeffrey Daumer, John Wayne Gacy, and Ted Bundy were nothing but rabid dogs.

Bullet to the head?

 

[AF_PedsBoy]

Chuck Norris seems to be the only method discussed in which one could be sure that the execution would not be botched.

We'd need a replacement though...I can imagine a LOT of things going wrong if they said, "Bring out the Chuck Norris!" and he was 93. A lot of quite FUNNY things, actually....

Execution by IM potassium

And on executions, I'd do it - of course I also think there's no such thing as "cruel and unusual punishment" for things like Columbine, 9-11, etc. If we take them prisoner I'm all for tying them to a post and beating them to death with a very small stick; that might be a good game show, letting each victim's family do as much damage as they could with a small stick in five minutes... we could bet on how many families it would take... like a lottery... Besides, do no harm could be taking a public menace and/or leech on society's resources out of the equation. That's one less person who can escape/be paroled and do it again, and more dollars for healthcare and education.

 

[8744]

If Chuck Norris round-house kicked you, your GCS would be 2.