Raven Birk

10/09/14

Research Journal 3

Summarize: This article was written in response to a Supreme Court decision to essentially require states to have a medical professional present at state executions because of the recent botching of the execution in Oklahoma.  Harvard professor Robert D Truog writes that it is very much so against the ethics of the medical profession to assist in executions even though many states have created laws to provide protections for the doctors who do choose to participate in the lethal injection administrations so that the state can move forward with their death row lists.  He writes that a profession has its own code of ethics and that any profession that does not respect its own ethics should not be considered a respectable profession. 

 

Synthesize: This presents a similar argument to the Washington Post article and it written about the same event in Oklahoma, doctor involvement almost seems necessary for the knowledge but it is in extreme opposition with the medical code of ethics.  On the other hand, it is similar to the first research article in that both claim that the states protect the practicing rights and the identity of the doctors helping with the procedure yet if that doctor is discovered, their integrity is compromised.  This article at least is from the point of view of a medical professional, giving me a new point of view to work with.

 

Critical Thinking: Now seeing this from the perspective of a doctor who doesn’t approve of the idea of medical intervention, I’m curious to find out if there is any documentation of the opinions of the doctors who choose to participate in these executions, I would like to see how they justify killing people and breaking their oath.  Also, other than to make the process of the lethal injection more humane and run a lot smoother, why would the supreme court make this “recommendation” to require a professional physician to be present at the executions when they are perfectly aware that killing patients have been against their code for decades unless they had a secret agenda to abolish capital punishment and this is just a way to minimize capital punishment until it disappears completely?   Is it worse for a doctor to participate and break the code in the name of making an execution as painless as possible or not break the code and watch prisoners endure horrible executions where they must go through cruel and usual punishment?   Do states actually want their doctors to break ethical code in order to implement the executions? They will almost have to eventually if they cannot do so without a medical professional or else they would become so behind on their deadlines that they would essentially need to only sentence people to life in prison and not have the option of sentencing criminals to death.

 

Questions and Planning: What would happen if the states couldn’t protect the doctors, would they not be able to execute people who had said punishment?  My next article will hopefully be an academic article from a participating doctor in this situation and see what their reasoning, suggestions and maybe regrets are and include.  Is it fundamentally wrong to break ethic code, stand by as prisoners are subjected to poorly implemented executions through which they must suffer greatly, or both?