Anti Death Penaltiers are after Doctors now!

[CCTAU 3,335]

Is that even a word?

OK. I agree with them.....It costs too much to have a doctor there anyway. I say we all start using the firing squad instead. We can have a raffle and set it up like a turkey shoot. Lethal injection is to easy on them anyhow.

Death Penalty Poses Ethics Quandary for Doctors

1 hour, 24 minutes ago  Add Health - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By Grant McCool

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Some death penalty abolitionists in the United States have a new target -- the doctors who help with lethal injections at executions, a complex ethical area in the fields of law and medicine.

 

In a move that some support as a strategy to help influence public opinion against capital punishment, a New York psychiatrist is working with lawyers who hope to charge doctors with professional misconduct for participating in executions.

Most states do not reveal whether doctors are present, but retired New York University psychiatry professor Arthur Zitrin has tracked down physicians in Georgia, Virginia and Illinois whom he wants to help oust on ethical grounds.

"The idea that physicians who have taken the Hippocratic Oath to take care of and preserve life, are taking part in executions is alarming and it is another sign that the death penalty tears at human rights," said Michael Stark of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty.

Most Americans, 64 percent, support capital punishment, according to an October 2003 Gallup poll. However, the American Medical Association's medical ethics code bars doctors from participating in a legally authorized execution.

Stark campaigned in Maryland to halt the execution of convicted rapist and murderer Steven Oken, 42, who was executed on Thursday night.

Oken lost a legal battle in which lawyers cited Maryland's previous execution in 1998 when there was a leak of anesthetic and chemicals that killed the condemned man. Lawyers argued the state's procedure was cruel and there was no certainty it could be carried out humanely.

MEDICAL QUALIFICATIONS

Some abolitionists argue that if prison staff are not qualified to apply the intravenous tubes and deadly cocktail of three chemicals used in most states, the role of medical personnel becomes even more questionable.

But attorney Kenneth Baum, who also teaches medical ethics at Yale University, said doctors do not have the right to politicize executions by lethal injection, the most common form of carrying out the death sentence in the United States.

"If a physician wants to be there and the condemned person wants them to be there, the physician's primary responsibility is to the patient," said Baum, who opposes the death penalty but sees no conflict with his approval of doctors' assistance.

"It is unacceptable for physicians to sacrifice a condemned inmate's comfort during their final minutes for the sake of making a political stand," he said.

He said that given that there were records of "botched" or prolonged executions, the condemned person deserved a doctor's presence for what he believes has become a medical procedure.

An intravenous tube is inserted into a vein and infused with Sodium Thiopental, or Sodium Pentothal, a barbiturate; Pancuronium Bromide, or Pavulon, and then potassium chloride.

In May, the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) indicated in a ruling that in some circumstances, a doctor's presence be required. This was the case of an Alabama death row inmate whose veins were so badly damaged by drug use that officials wanted to cut into part of his arm or leg to gain access to a vein.

In Oken's case, Maryland prison authorities declined to disclose whether there was a doctor present at the execution.

Oken was the 747th person to be executed by lethal injection in the United States since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, the Death Penalty Information Center said. The other 168 death sentences carried out were by electrocution, gas chamber, hanging and firing squad.

LINK

[bammanmr 0]

I say hang their a$$ from the biggest tree close to the courthouse!

[Tigermike 3,041]

At lethal injections why do they sterilize the needle? If they didn't would it be cruel and unusual punishment?

[keoson7 28]

they should just leave the criminals in a room with the victims relatives and let the eye for an eye theory take over.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

The same bozos who will fight tooth and nail to keep a murderer from being executed will often argue just as passionately for assisted suicide laws and abortion on demand. And they have the nerve to point out some perceived contradiction between the Hippocratic Oath and presiding over an execution? Talk to me about consistency when you figure out what it is for yourself.

What kind of mixed up worldview fights to keep killers alive but believes killing a child in the womb is acceptable collateral damage in the battle for "reproductive choice"?

[Tigermike 3,041]

What kind of mixed up worldview fights to keep killers alive but believes killing a child in the womb is acceptable collateral damage in the battle for "reproductive choice"?

Probably these folks here.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13750

[TexasTiger 12,964]

The same bozos who will fight tooth and nail to keep a murderer from being executed will often argue just as passionately for assisted suicide laws and abortion on demand.  And they have the nerve to point out some perceived contradiction between the Hippocratic Oath and presiding over an execution?  Talk to me about consistency when you figure out what it is for yourself.

What kind of mixed up worldview fights to keep killers alive but believes killing a child in the womb is acceptable collateral damage in the battle for "reproductive choice"?

Sincere question:

Do you see a contradiction in opposing abortion on the grounds that it is killing a life and at the same time being in favor of the state having the right to take the life of a citizen, even if he arguably "deserves to die"?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Actually, no. In fact, that position makes a whole lot more sense than the one I posited.

Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. The child has done nothing wrong except draw the wrong lotto number on available wombs. Executing a murderer is justice. He took a life, therefore his life is required of him. And the state is us. We as a society place such a high value on innocent life that sometimes, nothing short of paying with your own life meets the requirements of justice.

Flipping it back the other way for a sec, justify for me fighting to save the life of a murderer while simultaneously fighting to give others the right to kill innocent babies in the womb. See, I can ask questions too. Would you mind answering mine? And leave out for a second the "life of the mother" issue because 1) the vast majority of pro-life people would allow for that exception because the life of the mother is equal in value to the life of the baby and 2) that accounts for less than 2% of all abortions to begin with. That goes for the rape and incest arguments as well. They also add up to less than 2% of all abortions and are nothing more than a red herring. For the purposes of this discussion, stick with the "reproductive choice" reason. How does it make sense to fight so hard for this so-called right to kill while arguing for killers to live out their years with three square meals and free medical care?

Finally, if I had to choose one position to change on, I would rather allow a murderer to live in prison for life than to kill an innocent child as a birth control option. At least then you aren't compounding the evil.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

Actually, no.  In fact, that position makes a whole lot more sense than the one I posited. 

Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being.  The child has done nothing wrong except draw the wrong lotto number on available wombs.  Executing a murderer is justice.  He took a life, therefore his life is required of him.  And the state is us.  We as a society place such a high value on innocent life that sometimes, nothing short of paying with your own life meets the requirements of justice.

Flipping it back the other way for a sec, justify for me fighting to save the life of a murderer while simultaneously fighting to give others the right to kill innocent babies in the womb.  See, I can ask questions too.  Would you mind answering mine?  And leave out for a second the "life of the mother" issue because 1) the vast majority of pro-life people would allow for that exception because the life of the mother is equal in value to the life of the baby and 2) that accounts for less than 2% of all abortions to begin with.  That goes for the rape and incest arguments as well.  They also add up to less than 2% of all abortions and are nothing more than a red herring.  For the purposes of this discussion, stick with the "reproductive choice" reason.  How does it make sense to fight so hard for this so-called right to kill while arguing for killers to live out their years with three square meals and free medical care?

Finally, if I had to choose one position to change on, I would rather allow a murderer to live in prison for life than to kill an innocent child as a birth control option.  At least then you aren't compounding the evil.

Yes, you can "ask questions too." I thought at least you and I and worked past the snark, though.

I used to have your view on the death penalty. Probably even stronger. So I understand it. I don't really "fight" against the death penalty, although I have developed more qualms in recent years with the concept of the state taking a life. Although the Libertarian party has no official policy on this, it seems to be the last authority a libertarian would care to cede to the state. Yes, theoretically the state is "us", but since "we" often disagree as a people, and when one of "us" is going against the state, e.g. tax audit, appealing your property tax, etc., the state can often seem like an entity over which we don't have much control and we can feel pretty powerless even if we are "right".

If killing is wrong it seems wrong for the state to do it in a planned, deliberate, non-protective fashion (obviously this doesn't include wartime, or cops doing their job). This is as much the Catholic Church's position as is their stance against abortion. As a country, we are in rather unsavory company in regard to the death penalty. Not that I feel particular pity for most criminals who receive it, although I suspect it is harder for a rich person to be put to death in America than it is for a camel to get through the eye of a needle, to paraphrase someone wiser than both of us. I would agree that on some level it is "justice" and, as I said, most people on death row probably don't "deserve to live" by most Americans' standards. The larger problem for me is whether I, and the state as an extension of you and me, have the right to kill, outside of directly protecting yourself or others (e.g. someone breaking in your home.) And in doing so, does it demean us all? Does it "compound the evil."?

Is it unconstitutional? Not on its face. Is it immoral? Maybe, maybe not. Are we more moral not to engage in punishment that is largely vengeful? I suspect that we are.

In regard to abortion, I disagree with those who compare it to any other operation. I recall a choice proponent comparing it a tonsilectomy which I thought was absurd. I think whether to have an abortion is a moral choice, as are most choices we are faced with, although clearly some have greater ramifications, such as abortion, than others. The thing that I have not heard anti-choice folks adequately address is what we do with those who seek and perform abortions. If abortion is murder, aren't the woman and the doctor partners in a murder? If a friend drives one to the clinic, isn't that person an accomplice? If another friend keeps the secret, are they an accomplice after the fact? What are we as a society prepared to do about folks who are found guilty and what is the rationale for doing it?

The most common framework I have heard is that it is murder, i.e. killing an unborn life. What are the logical extensions of that? And what about the person who "falls" down the steps, etc. and miscarries? And if Roe is overturned, we will have some states in which it is perfectly legal and other states in which it is murder. Personally, I'm not prepared to treat these women and their doctors as murderers, and I haven't heard an alternative that makes logical sense either. Got one? Personally, I believe moral suasion is the better tool as opposed to legislation on this matter, but I certainly understand people who are troubled by it.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Sorry about the snark. I got irritated when I perceived that you were answering my (implied) questions with a counter question rather than dealing with the issue straight forwardly.

Personally, I don't believe killing, in and of itself, is wrong. That isn't the position of Scripture either. For instance, the Hebrew word rendered by some translations as "kill" in the commandment "thou shalt not kill" is not the same generic term used in most of the Old Testament. It is a more specific term than simply "taking/ending a life". It is best rendered "murder"; the unauthorized and unlawful taking of a life or the taking of an innocent life.

So, I don't see the execution of a murderer as wrong. It is a legitimate function and authority given to the state as an agent of justice. Now, that's a broad position and there will and should be grey areas. For instance, I think that the case should be "airtight" to get a death penalty sentence. In other words, you might be able to get life without parole in some cases but to get a death sentence there would need to be a higher level or assurance that we don't have the wrong person....DNA evidence, videotape, multiple eyewitnesses, etc. I would have no problem with that because I don't want us making mistakes on that either. We can always debate the particulars, but I believe that some cases should have death as an option for sentencing. Tim McVeigh comes to mind. If the Columbine killers hadn't committed suicide and had gone to trial, they would certainly fit the bill.

On abortion I think you would have to attack the issue from both sides. The truth is, most women seek abortion not because they hate babies. It primarily stems from a lack of financial and emotional support. Their parents will throw them out. They will have to drop out of college to raise the child because they can't afford child care, essentially consigning them to a life of scraping by at best. The father is pressuring them to get one and threatens not to help out financially or otherwise. They don't make enough money to work and get day care. The list goes on and on.

So my approach first would be to find ways to fill in those gaps and help women be mothers without sending them into a tailspin of financial and emotional chaos. I think more employers need to have on site child care. Colleges and universities could do the same. For those who still don't want a child yet, instead of paying for abortions, the government could take care of pre-natal care and all hospital expenses for women who will give their child up for adoption. I would also give more tax breaks for couples who want to adopt and federalize the adoption requirements to streamline the process so that you don't have to be rich to adopt.

I could go on and on. But I would start with the above but eventually, I would like to see abortion outlawed. And we'd make exceptions for accidents just like we do with any other killing now. There is a difference between killing someone else in a car accident and filling them full of bullets. But for the doctors who perform abortions and the women who seek them, I would consider that murder and prosecute them accordingly. We either value human life or we don't. Inconvenience is not an excuse. Don't tell me it's wrong to execute cold-blooded murderers while rallying for a woman's right to kill her unborn child.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

But for the doctors who perform abortions and the women who seek them, I would consider that murder and prosecute them accordingly. We either value human life or we don't. Inconvenience is not an excuse. Don't tell me it's wrong to execute cold-blooded murderers while rallying for a woman's right to kill her unborn child.

That's a logically consistent position. I don't hear many politicians who favor outlawing abortion being that forthright about the logical extension of that position.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Well, I don't think you could go from where we are right now to that position overnight. I don't think the country is ready for it and I don't think we've adequately addressed the major reasons women seek abortions. I believe it's not because it's their first choice. I believe it's because they think it's their only choice. That has to change.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Sincere question:

Do you see a contradiction in opposing abortion on the grounds that it is killing a life and at the same time being in favor of the state having the right to take the life of a citizen, even if he arguably "deserves to die"?

Sincere answer - No. No contradiction.

The child has no "choice" (pun intended). The convicted murderer had choices and he or she made the wrong ones. DNA evidence these days pretty much makes sure that convicted people are supposed to be right where they are. Committing the ultimate crime means you pay the ultimate punishment. As a cop's kid, I am a firm supporter of the death penalty.

However, for full disclosure, I will also admit that I was pro-choice (abortion only for the three exceptions, never as birth control) until I had Katie. Now, all this partial birth abortion stuff makes my stomach clench. I had all those sonograms, and was able to see her grow and develop. I cannot imagine taking her life for my own benefit.

So, IMO, how anti-death penalty people can justify killing an unborn child is the contradiction. They will protect convicted scum of the earth, who committed horrible crimes against other humans, but won't protect a precious innocent life just because it might inconvenience the mom. I am here to tell you that pregnancy is NOT easy, and it is NOT fun, and I pretty much hated every minute of it. The inconvenience was incredible. But I would do it all over again tomorrow to have Katie. You don't want to be pregnant? Simple. Either don't have sex or use birth control.

I like Titan's ideas about giving moms incentives to be "inconvenienced" and then give the baby up for adoption. So many people WANT to raise a baby but can't have their own. I LOVE that idea.

[Ravad 77]

I like Titan's ideas about giving moms incentives to be "inconvenienced" and then give the baby up for adoption.  So many people WANT to raise a baby but can't have their own.  I LOVE that idea.

My only promblem with this idea is everyone wants a "nice" baby.

By giving incentives you will start paying people to breed.

For example drug addicts, women with mental illness in their family, women who don't know who the Daddy is, etc.. What happens when noone wants these babies?

[channonc 466]

I like Titan's ideas about giving moms incentives to be "inconvenienced" and then give the baby up for adoption.  So many people WANT to raise a baby but can't have their own.  I LOVE that idea.

My only promblem with this idea is everyone wants a "nice" baby.

By giving incentives you will start paying people to breed.

For example drug addicts, women with mental illness in their family, women who don't know who the Daddy is, etc.. What happens when noone wants these babies?

I was thinking the same thing. Not to mention a child's chances of being adopted decrease the older they get. Pretty soon they are just hopping from foster home to foster home.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I like Titan's ideas about giving moms incentives to be "inconvenienced" and then give the baby up for adoption.  So many people WANT to raise a baby but can't have their own.  I LOVE that idea.

My only promblem with this idea is everyone wants a "nice" baby.

By giving incentives you will start paying people to breed.

For example drug addicts, women with mental illness in their family, women who don't know who the Daddy is, etc.. What happens when noone wants these babies?

Well, the incentive isn't one that's going to net them any financial gains. The incentive is just pre-natal care and paying for the hospitalization/delivery. Nothing more. You could even put a requirement in that they could not profit at all from giving the child up...in other words it would nix a lot of private adoptions and such. Make them go through the approved public adoption procedures. It ends up not really being an incentive per se, but rather a removal of a big obstacle to keeping the child...worries about the cost of health care throughout the pregnancy.

The other thing is, there are millions of people waiting to adopt. And it is true that many people want a perfect infant but you can do things on the other side of the equation to streamline and make adoptions more affordable for the couples wanting children.

Truth is, there is no perfect solution. The ideal thing would be for guys to keep it in their pants and girls to keep their pants on until they are married. But you have to deal with reality and I think going down this road is much more preferable to just killing the child.

[Ravad 77]

I like Titan's ideas about giving moms incentives to be "inconvenienced" and then give the baby up for adoption.  So many people WANT to raise a baby but can't have their own.  I LOVE that idea.

My only promblem with this idea is everyone wants a "nice" baby.

By giving incentives you will start paying people to breed.

For example drug addicts, women with mental illness in their family, women who don't know who the Daddy is, etc.. What happens when noone wants these babies?

Well, the incentive isn't one that's going to net them any financial gains. The incentive is just pre-natal care and paying for the hospitalization/delivery. Nothing more. You could even put a requirement in that they could not profit at all from giving the child up...in other words it would nix a lot of private adoptions and such. Make them go through the approved public adoption procedures. It ends up not really being an incentive per se, but rather a removal of a big obstacle to keeping the child...worries about the cost of health care throughout the pregnancy.

What in this would make people not do private adoption?

Why women do private adoption: They make money.

Why prospective parents choose private adoption: They get to find out life history of the parents and make sure the mother stays drug free and well cared for.

In other words what would make the Mothers choose your route?

[tiger88 934]

We are already paying people to breed and it is failing miserably.

[CCTAU 3,335]

We are already paying people to breed and it is failing miserably.

My thoughts exactly. But now you are just being a bigot and TA or one of his buddies will attack you for implying that welfare is just a payment for breeding. Even though its the simple truth.

[tiger88 934]

The idea of welfare is a good one and if it was used properly it would be a beautiful thing. Unfortunately this world is full of people looking for a free ride and they don't care what it takes to get it.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

What in this would make people not do private adoption?

Why women do private adoption: They make money.

Why prospective parents choose private adoption: They get to find out life history of the parents and make sure the mother stays drug free and well cared for.

In other words what would make the Mothers choose your route?

Different women choose different routes for different reasons. Truth be told, I'm not certain that it's legal even now for a woman to actually profit from giving her child up for adoption. I think that most of them simply get their health care and other pregnancy needs taken care of by the adoptive parents until the baby is born. There may be some money going under the table but that's a little different.

All I'm saying is that survey show that most women choose abortion because they think it's their only choice in light of the other so-called options. They can't afford the pre-natal care or the hospital stay. They have no family support or paternal support. They won't have child care and therefore would end up on welfare. They don't have child care and therefore would have to drop out of school. The pressures are many and abortion ends up being the easiest way out. The provision for carrying a child to term for adoption would just be one support system. The bottom line is, single women...even if they think they will never abort a child...will want it as an option as long as the deck is so stacked against them if they choose to keep it. Given the choice of keeping the baby, dropping out of school and being consigned to a life of poorly paying jobs or welfare OR aborting it and going on with life, guess which one they will most often choose?

And you can also address the provisions of family history and so on under this system.