Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-h6jzd Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-02-14T12:07:39.180Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physicians Should Treat Mentally Ill Death Row Inmates, Even if Treatment is Refused

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Melissa McDonnell  and
Robert T. M. Phillips
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The history of physician involvement in capital proceedings is longstanding and ripe with controversy and conflicts of ethical concerns. Previously one of us (Phillips) has written that the controversy is more appropriately characterized as a conflict of moral position rather than one of ethical dilemma.

In hindsight, we believe that analysis, while true, does not capture the depth or complexity of the issue.

Forensic psychiatric evaluations, including competency to be executed evaluations, are done with a clear understanding that no physician-patient relationship exists. Treatment, however, is not so neatly re-categorized in large measure because it involves the physician’s active provision of the healing arts.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , Winter 2010 , pp. 774 - 788
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Phillips, R. T. M., “The Psychiatrist as Evaluator: Conflicts and Conscience,” New York Law School Law Review 41 (1996): 189–199, at 194.Google Scholar
Katz, D. L., “Note, Perry v. Louisiana: Medical Ethics on Death Row: Is Judicial Interveniton Warranted?” Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 4, no. 3 (1991): 707–729, at 716.Google Scholar
Id., at 718.Google Scholar
Id., at 716.Google Scholar
Id., at 716.Google Scholar
Mossman, D., “The Psychiatrist and Execution Competency: Fording Murky Ethical Waters,” Case Western Reserve Law Review 43 (1992): 1, at 30.Google Scholar
See Katz, , supra note 2, at 720.Google Scholar
Id., at 721.Google Scholar
See Mossman, , supra note 6, at 27.Google Scholar
Heilbrun, K. et al., “The Debate on Treating Individuals Incompetent for Execution,” American Journal of Psychiatry 149 (1992): 596–605, at 598.Google Scholar
Judges, D. P., “The Role of Mental Health Professionals in Capital Punishment: An Exercise in Moral Disengagement,” Houston Law Review 41 (Summer 2004): 515–611.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Dubber, M. D., “The Pain of Punishment,” Buffalo Law Review 44, no. 2 (1996): 545–611, at 580 (arguing that “virtually everyone who actually participates in the system of capital punishment, from the capital sentencing jurors to the state trial and appellate judges, to their federal counterparts, and on to the governor, the warden, the physician, and the executioner, struggles with the fundamental inhibition against inflicting the always physical violence of execution”). Refer to Part IV.A infra.Google Scholar
Refer to Part IV.B infra.Google Scholar
Refer to Part IV.C infra.Google Scholar
Refer to Part IV.D infra.Google Scholar
Refer to Part IV.E infra.Google Scholar
Refer to Part IV.F infra.Google Scholar
Phillips, R. T. M., “The Psychiatrist as Evaluator: Conflicts and Conscience,” New York Law School Law Review 41, no. 1 (1996): 189–199, at 194.Google Scholar
Id., at 192.Google Scholar
Bonnie, R. J., “Healing-Killing Conflicts: Medical Ethics and the Death Penalty,” Hastings Center Report 20 (1990): 12, at 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Mossman, , supra note 6, at 48.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Jenkins, R. K., “Comment, Fit to Die: Drug-Induced Competency for the Purpose of Execution,” Southern Illinois University Law Journal 20 (1995): 149, 171.Google Scholar
Katz, D. L., “Perry v. Louisiana: Medical Ethics on Death Row-Is Judicial Intervention Warranted?,” Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 4, no. 3 (1991): 707–729, at 718.Google Scholar
Id., at 713.Google Scholar
See Katz, , supra note 2, at 714.Google Scholar
Appelbaum, P. S., “Competence to Be Executed: Another Conundrum for Mental Health Professionals,” Hospital & Community Psychiatry 37, no. 7 (1986): 682–684, at 683.Google Scholar
Freedman, A. M. and Halpern, A. L., “A Crisis in the Ethical and Moral Behavior of Psychiatrists,” Current Opinion in Psychiatry 11, no. 1 (1998): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Mossman, , supra note 6, at 44.Google Scholar
Id., at 44.Google Scholar
Id., at 32.Google Scholar
Id., at 34.Google Scholar
McCoy Daugherty, K., Comment, ‘“Synthetic Sanity’: The Ethics and Legality of Using Psychotropic Medications to Render Death Row Inmates Competent for Execution,” Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy 17 (2001): 715–735, at 724.Google Scholar
See Bonnie, , supra note 27, at 13.Google Scholar
Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association, “Council Report: Physician Participation in Capital Punishment,” JAMA 270, no. 3 (1993): 365–368, at 365 [Hereinafter CEJA Report].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curran, W. J. and Casscells, W., “The Ethics of Medical Participation in Capital Punishment by Intravenous Injection,” New England Journal of Medicine 302 (1980): 226–230, at 227 (quoting Reiser, S. et al., ed., Ethics in Medicine: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Concerns 5 (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977]).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Casscells, W. and Curran, W. J., “Doctors, the Death Penalty, and Lethal Injections: Recent Developments,” New England Journal of Medicine 307, no. 24 (1982): 1532–1533, at 1532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, N. S., “Comment, Restoration of Competency for Execution: Furiosus Solo Furore Punitur,” Southwestern Journal of Law 44 (1990): 1191, 1212.Google Scholar
Id., at 1212–1213; Bonnie, R. J., “Dilemmas in Administering the Death Penalty: Conscientious Abstention, Professional Ethics and the Needs of the Legal System,” Law and Human Behavior 14, no. 1 (1990): 67–90, at 83–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Applebaum, P., “The Parable of the Forensic Psychiatrist: Ethics and the Problem of Doing Harm,” International Journal of Law & Psychiatry 13 (1990): 249, at 256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Applebaum, , supra note 28, at 683.Google Scholar
Ewing, C. P., “Diagnosisng and Treating Insanity on Death Row Legal and Ethical Perspectives,” Behavorial Sciences & Law 5 (1987): 175, 183–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Bonnie, , supra note 21, at 83; Heilbrun, K. et al., “The Debate on Treating Individuals Incompetent for Execution,” American Journal of Psychiatry 149 (1992): 596–605, at 601, 604.Google Scholar
Id. (Heibrun), at 598.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) (plurality).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 401.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 402.Google Scholar
Id., at 402–403.Google Scholar
Id., at 403.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 404.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 404–405.Google Scholar
Id., at 406.Google Scholar
Id. (quoting Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958) (plurality)).Google Scholar
Id., at 407.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 409.Google Scholar
Id., at 407.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 409.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 410.Google Scholar
Id., at 410–413.Google Scholar
Id., at 411.Google Scholar
Id., at 417.Google Scholar
Id., at 415–416.Google Scholar
Id., at 418.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Panetti v. Quarterman, 127 S.Ct. 2842 (Jan. 5, 2007).Google Scholar
Id., at 2848; Panetti v. Cockrell, 73 Fed. Appx. 78, 78 (5th Cir. 2003) (unpublished).Google Scholar
Amnesty International, “Where Is the Compassion?: The Imminent Execution of Scott Panetti, Mentally Ill Offender,” January 2004, available at <http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/011/2004/en/d9f476b8-d644–1ab95-a13b602c0642/amr510112004en.pdf> (last visited November 2, 1010).+(last+visited+November+2,+1010).>Google Scholar
Panetti, 127 S.Ct. at 2848.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.; see Amnesty International, supra note 78, at 5.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Panetti, 127 S.Ct. at 2849.Google Scholar
See Amnesty International, supra note 78, at 3–4.Google Scholar
Id., at 6–7.Google Scholar
Id., at 8; Alvorado, Sonja, Panetti's estranged wife and daughter of his victims, called the trial “a circus” and noted that “there was lots the jury did not know about Scott and his mental illness” in a 1999 affidavit (Sonja Alvorado Affidavit, August 10, 1999).Google Scholar
Panetti, 127 S.Ct. at 2849; see Amnesty International, supra note 78, at 10Google Scholar
Id., at 10–11.Google Scholar
Id., at 2859.Google Scholar
Id., at 2862 (“A prisoner's awareness of the State's rationale for an execution is not the same as a rational understanding of it. Ford does not foreclose inquiry into the latter”).Google Scholar
Id., at 2860.Google Scholar
Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 169 (2003).Google Scholar
Id., at 171.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 213 (1990).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 214.Google Scholar
Id., at 220 (quoting Mills v. Rogers, 457 U.S. 291, 299 (1982)).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 221.Google Scholar
Id., at 222.Google Scholar
Id., at 224–225 (1990); see Horton, , supra note 2, at 1208.Google Scholar
Harper, 494 U.S. at 225.Google Scholar
Id., at 225–226.Google Scholar
Id., at 227.Google Scholar
Id., at 228.Google Scholar
State v. Perry, 610 So. 2d 746 (La. 1992).Google Scholar
Id., at 748.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
State v. Perry, 543 So. 2d 487 (La. 1989).Google Scholar
Perry v. Louisiana, 494 U.S. 1015 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 38 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, R. K., Comment, “Fit to Die: Drug-Induced Competency for the Purpose of Execution,” Southern Illinois University Law School 20 (1995): 149–179, at 160.Google Scholar
State v. Perry, 610 So. 2d 746, 747 (La. 1992). It is important to note that the Perry decision relied on the Louisiana Constitution, not the United States Constitution. Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 751.Google Scholar
Id., at 751–752.Google Scholar
Id., at 752.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 753.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 754.Google Scholar
Id., at 755.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 747.Google Scholar
Singleton v. Norris, 319 F.3d 1018 (8th Cir. 2003); 540 U.S. 832 (2003) (denying certiroari).Google Scholar
Id., at 1020.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 1021.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 1022.Google Scholar
Id., at 1024.Google Scholar
Id., at 1025.Google Scholar
Id. Arguably, , Sell requires that the State bear the burden of demonstrating that there is no less intrusive means of achieving its objective, not the defendant as the Eighth Circuit suggests.Google Scholar
Id., at 1026.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 1026–1027Google Scholar
See Katz, , supra note 2, at 720.Google Scholar
Id., at 718.Google Scholar
Id., at 716.Google Scholar
Id., at 716.Google Scholar
See Mossman, , supra note 6, at 30.Google Scholar
See Heilbrun, , supra note 44, at 598.Google Scholar
Gregg Bloche, M., “Uruguay's Military Physicians: Cogs in a System of State Terror,” JAMA 255, no. 20 (1986): 2788–2793.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 2792.Google Scholar
Id., at 2792.Google Scholar
Id., at 2792.Google Scholar
Id., at 2792.Google Scholar
Id., at 2792.Google Scholar
Id., at 2792.Google Scholar
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,104–05 (1976).Google Scholar
See Mossman, , supra note 6, at 31.Google Scholar
Id., at 32.Google Scholar
Id., at 35.Google Scholar
Id., at 40.Google Scholar
Id., at 44.Google Scholar
Id., at 45.Google Scholar
Id., at 45.Google Scholar
Id., at 54.Google Scholar
Id., at 54.Google Scholar
Id., at 56–58.Google Scholar
Id., at 60.Google Scholar
Id., at 60.Google Scholar
Id., at 61.Google Scholar
Id., at 62.Google Scholar
Id., at 62.Google Scholar
Id., at 64.Google Scholar
Id., at 66.Google Scholar
Id., at 69.Google Scholar
Id., at 71.Google Scholar
Id., at 75.Google Scholar
Id., at 77.Google Scholar
Id., at 79.Google Scholar
Id., at 83.Google Scholar
Id., at 84.Google Scholar
Id., at 90.Google Scholar
Id., at 91.Google Scholar
Id., at 68.Google Scholar
Id., at 91.Google Scholar
Id., at 92.Google Scholar
Id., at 92–93.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar