Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T22:59:43.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physician Participation in Executions: Care Giver or Executioner?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Peter A. Clark
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

To circumvent objections that the death penalty was “cruel and unusual punishment” and therefore a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, advocates proposed lethal injection and the involvement of physicians to overcome the negative perceptions associated with the death penalty, and to increase public acceptability of the practice. Initiated in 1982, lethal injection is now the primary method of execution in 37 of the 38 states with the death penalty. “To be exact, this method has been used to kill 788 of the 956 men and women who have been executed in the United States since 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court.” More recently, of the 191 executions performed in the United States since 2001, 189 have been by lethal injection.

This “medicalization” of the death penalty has ignited a debate, by those within the medical profession and by others outside it, about the appropriateness of physicians participating in executions.

Type
Independent
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , Spring 2006 , pp. 95 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2006

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

Editorial, “Medical Collusion in the Death Penalty: An American Atrocity,” The Lancet 365 (April 16, 2005): 1361.Google Scholar
Robeznieks, A., “In the Execution Chamber: Do Doctors have a Place – At All?” AM News, October 25, 2004, at 1, available at <http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2004/10/25/prsa1025.htm> (last visited January 3, 2006).+(last+visited+January+3,+2006).>Google Scholar
Emanuel, L. and Bienen, L., “Physician Participation in Executions: Time to Eliminate Anonymity Provisions and Protest the Practice,” Annals of Internal Medicine 135 (2001): 922–924.Google Scholar
Editor, “Medical Ethics and Physician Involvement,” Human Rights Watch (2004): at 1, available at <http://www.hrw.org/reports/1994/usdp/8.htm> (last visited December 5, 2005).+(last+visited+December+5,+2005).>Google Scholar
Farber, N. Davis, E. Weiner, J., et al., “Physicians' Attitudes about Involvement in Lethal Injection for Capital Punishment,” Annals of Internal Medicine 160 (2000): 2912–2916.Google Scholar
Welsh, J., “The Death Penalty,” The Lancet 362 [supplement 1] (2003): s24–s25. See also Weiner, D. B., “The Real Dr. Guillotin,” Journal of the American Medical Association 220 (1972): 85–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emanuel, and Bienen, , supra note 3, at 923.Google Scholar
Welsh, , supra note 6, at s24.Google Scholar
Emanuel, and Bienen, , supra note 3, at 923. “Using a razor-sharp knife to sever the soft tissues of the neck is an ancient method that is, in the era of anatomy and physiology, thought to cause immediate loss of intracerebral pressure and irreversible unconsciousness.” Id.Google Scholar
Curran, W. and Casscells, W., “Sounding Board: The Ethics of Medical Participation in Capital Punishment by Intravenous Drug Use,” New England Journal of Medicine 302 (1980): 226–230.Google Scholar
Gordon, N., “The White Coat Passes Like a Shadow in the Execution Chambers,” Humanist 55 (1995): 35–36.Google Scholar
Baum, K., “To Comfort Always: Physician Participation in Executions,” New York University Journal of Legislation & Public Policy 5 (2001): 1–82.Google Scholar
Editorial, supra note 1, at 1361.Google Scholar
Welsh, , supra note 6, at s24.Google Scholar
Denno, D. W., “Getting to Death: Are Executions Constitutional?” Iowa Law Review 82 (1997): 319–464. For a more detailed analysis of “botched” executions, see Radelet, M., “Post-Furman Botched Executions,” Death Penalty Information Center (June 30, 2005): 1–8, at <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8&did=478> (last visited December 5, 2005).Google Scholar
Baum, , supra note 12, at 54.Google Scholar
An Intravenous (IV) catheter is a large-bore needle inserted into a person's veins to facilitate the infusion of liquid into the bloodstream.Google Scholar
Baum, , supra note 12, at 54, note 25.Google Scholar
Editor, supra note 4, at 2.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Wolinsky, H., “U.S. Physicians Debate Capital Punishment,” The Lancet 346 (1995): 42–45.Google Scholar
Dorland's Illustrated Dictionary, 27th Edition, Taylor, E. J., ed. (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunder Company, 1988): 768.Google Scholar
Council of Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA), American Medical Association, “Council Report: Physician Participation in Capital Punishment,” Journal of the American Medical Association 270 (1993): 365. It should be noted that at the same time or subsequent to the Council's original report, several other medical associations, including the World Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, the American Public Health Association, the medical societies of Nordic countries (Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland and Sweden), the American Psychiatric Association, and the Committee on Bioethical Issues of the Medical Society of the State of New York, also adopted policies which prohibited physician participation in executions.Google Scholar
Council of Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association, Code of Medical Ethics: Current Opinions with Annotations, 2004–2005 Edition (Chicago: AMA Press, 2004): 2.06, at 18–19.Google Scholar
Id., at 19.Google Scholar
Id., “The following actions do not constitute physician participation in an execution: (1) testifying as to medical history and diagnoses or mental state as they relate to competence to stand trial, testifying as to relevant medical evidence during trial, testifying as to medical aspects of aggravating or mitigating circumstances during the penalty phase of a capital case, or testifying as to medical diagnoses as they relate to the legal assessment of competence for execution; (2) certifying death, provided that the condemned has been declared dead by another person; (3) witnessing an execution in a totally non-professional capacity; (4) witnessing an execution at the specific voluntary request of the condemned person, provided that the physician observes the execution in a non-professional capacity; (5) relieving the acute suffering of a condemned person while awaiting execution, including providing tranquilizers at the specific voluntary request of the condemned person to help relieve pain or anxiety in anticipation of the execution.” Id.Google Scholar
CEJA Report, supra note 23, at 366.Google Scholar
Barclay, L., “First, Do No Harm: A Newsmaker Interview with Jonathan I. Groner, M.D.” Medscape Medical News (2002): 1–3, at <http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/445047_print> (last visited December 6, 2005).+(last+visited+December+6,+2005).>Google Scholar
Liptak, A., “Should Doctors Help With Executions? No Easy Ethical Answer,” The New York Times, January 10, 2004, available at <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/10/national/10death.html?th=&> (last visited December 5, 2005).+(last+visited+December+5,+2005).>Google Scholar
Baum, , supra note 12, at 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liptak, , supra note 29, at 2.Google Scholar
Gordon, , supra note 11, at 36.Google Scholar
Farber, , et al., supra note 5, at 2912–2916.Google Scholar
Editor, supra note 4, at 1.Google Scholar
Baum, , supra note 12, at 58.Google Scholar
Curran, and Casscells, , supra note 10, at 229.Google Scholar
Mangan, J., “An Historical Analysis of the Principle of Double Effect,” Theological Studies 10 (1949): 41. The principle of double effect specifies four conditions that must be fulfilled for an action with both a good and bad effect to be morally justified. (1) The action, considered by itself and independently of its effects, must not be morally evil. The object of the action must be good or indifferent; (2) the evil effect must not be the means of producing the good effect; (3) the evil effect is sincerely not intended, but merely tolerated; (4) there must be a proportionate reason for performing the action, in spite of the evil consequences. See Kelly, G., Medico-Moral Problems (St. Louis: The Catholic Hospital Association of the United States and Canada, 1958): 13–14.Google Scholar
Baum, , supra note 12, at 61.Google Scholar
CEJA Report, supra note 23, at 366.Google Scholar
Purtilo, R., “Conduct, Virtue, and Context in the Professional-Patient Relationship,” in Reich, W., ed., Encyclopedia of Bioethics, rev. ed. (New York: Simon & Schuster and Prentice Hall, 1995): 2096.Google Scholar
Emanuel, and Bienen, , supra note 3, at 1.Google Scholar
Editor, supra note 4, at 3.Google Scholar
World Medical Association, International Code of Medical Ethics Handbook of Declarations 22 (1985).Google Scholar
Spevick, J., “Physicians as Agents of the State,” American Medical Associations' Virtual Mentor (November 12, 2004): 1–3.Google Scholar
Baum, , supra note 12, at 62.Google Scholar
Emanuel, and Bienen, , supra note 3, at 2.Google Scholar
Koniaris, L. G. Zimmers, T. A. Lubarsky, D. A., et al., “Inadequate Anaesthesia in Lethal Injection for Execution,” The Lancet 365 (2005): 1412–1414.Google Scholar
Editorial, supra note 1, at 1361.Google Scholar
Id., at 1412. The AVMA specifies that “it is of the utmost importance that personnel performing this technique are trained and knowledgeable in anesthetic techniques, and are competent in assessing anesthetic depth appropriate for administration of potassium chloride intravenously.” Id., at 1414.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Truog, R. and Brennan, T., “Sounding Board – Participation of Physicians in Capital Punishment,” The New England Journal of Medicine 329 (October 28, 1993): 1346–1350. See also, Walzer, M. Spheres of Justice (New York: Basic Books, 1984) and Brennan, T., Just Doctoring: Medical Ethics in the Liberal State (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991).Google Scholar
Farber, , et al., supra note 5, at 2912–2916.Google Scholar
See Curran, and Casscells, , supra note 10, at 226–230; Bolsen, B., “Strange Bedfellows: Death Penalty and Medicine,” Journal of the American Medical Association 248 (1982): 518–519; and Entman, H., “First Do No Harm,” Journal of the American Medical Association 261 (1989): 134.Google Scholar
CEJA, supra note 23, at 366–367. See also Rosner, F. Halpern, A. L. Kark, P. R., et al., “Physician Involvement in Capital Punishment,” New York State Journal of Medicine 91 (1991): 15–18.Google Scholar
CEJA, supra note 23, at 366–367.Google Scholar
Geiderman, J. M., “Ethics Seminars: Physician Complicity in the Holocaust: Historical Review and Reflections on Emergency Medicine in the 21st Century,” Academic Emergency Medicine 9 (2002): 232–240.Google Scholar
Farber, , et al., supra note 5, at 2913–2914.Google Scholar
Cochran, J. K. Chamlin, M. B. Seth, M., “Deterrence or Brutalization? An Impact Assessment of Oklahoma's Return to Capital Punishment,” Criminology 36 (1994): 107–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagan, J., “Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Critical Review of New Evidence,” testimony to the New York State Assembly Standing Committee on Codes, Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary, and Assembly Standing Committee on Correction – Hearings on the Future of Capital Punishment in the State of New York (Albany, NY: January 21, 2005): 1–12, at 2.Google Scholar
Wirt, D. Bailey, W. Bowers, W., “Physicians' Attitudes about Involvement in Lethal Injection for Capital Punishment,” Archives of Internal Medicine 161 (2001): 1353–1354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Death Penalty Information Center, Innocence: Freed from Death Row (2005): 1–7 at <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110> (last visited January 3, 2006).+(last+visited+January+3,+2006).>Google Scholar
Wirt, , et al., supra note 60, at 1354.Google Scholar
CEJA, supra note 24, at 2.06, at 18.Google Scholar
Emanuel, and Bienen, , supra note 3, at 922.Google Scholar
Baum, , supra note 12, at 66. See also American Academy of Physician Assistants, Guidelines for Ethical Conduct for Physician Assistant Profession 8 (adopted May 2000), available at <http://www.aapa.org/gandp/ethical-guidelines.pdf> (last visited January 3, 2006) and American Nurses Association Position Statements: Nurses' Participation in Capital Punishment (July 2001), available at <http://www.nursingworld.org/readroom/position/ethics/etcptl.htm> (last visited December 6, 2005). (last visited December 6, 2005).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Baum,+,+supra+note+12,+at+66.+See+also+American+Academy+of+Physician+Assistants,+Guidelines+for+Ethical+Conduct+for+Physician+Assistant+Profession+8+(adopted+May+2000),+available+at++(last+visited+January+3,+2006)+and+American+Nurses+Association+Position+Statements:+Nurses'+Participation+in+Capital+Punishment+(July+2001),+available+at++(last+visited+December+6,+2005).>Google Scholar
Truog, and Brennan, , supra note 51, at 1349.Google Scholar
Gordon, , supra note 11, at 36.Google Scholar