I'm currently reading an informative and eye opening book ("Better" by Atul Gawande) about issues doctors face. I'm halfway through the book so far and I have to say that most of the things mentioned are not things I don't already know as common to the profession (interesting as it has been to still read about).....from germs and sanitation to malpractice and the convoluted, frustrating arena of insurance.What I find intriguing and thought provoking, however, is the chapter the author devotes to the subject of doctors as 'legal executioners,' physicians who provide the lethal injections to death row inmates and/or are present to make sure it is being done correctly and effectively, as well as confirming when the prisoner is officially deceased. It raises an ethical catch 22 of what exactly is "harm" (ie, the doctor shall "do no harm" to the patient) and what becomes more important, fulfilling societal duties when called upon to do so or strictly adhering to medical ethics and laws with no room for interpretation?
"Execution has become a medical procedure in the United States. That fact has forced a few doctors and nurses, asked to participate in executions, to choose between the ethical codes of their professions and the desires of broader society. The codes of medical societies are not always right and neither are the laws of society. There are vital but sometimes murky differences between acting skillfully, acting lawfully, and acting ethically."
I find it funny (ironic) that Americans spend so much time debating the whole abortion issue, yet this particular issue doesn't seem to be discussed. Isn't it another side of the same coin? Doctors "helping" in an unconventional way, yet "harming" if only looked at from the perspective of the Hippocratic oath. The author tells readers that it was hard for him to find doctors willing to talk to him about this topic for the book, even the very doctors who have been present for and/or performed lethal injections! As with doctors who perform abortions, there is much controversy and risk of backlash from the community. It is no surprise the doctors who spoke to the author insisted on anonymity in exchange for knowledge and discussion on the subject.
Some of the examples he gave of doctors' experience with legal injection was borderline semantics.....those that did not inject the drugs themselves, but basically monitored from a distance. Others had more direct involvement.
While I continued to read about this convoluted issue, I also wondered....how could anyone BESIDES a doctor give an injection? Doesn't it do MORE harm to have someone without skills and credentials provide a risky medical procedure? A doctor is the most competent person for this, not a warden. The author talks about executions gone awry when physician involvement has been minimal to none (therefore violating the 8th Amendment of abstaining from cruel and unusual punishment) .
If one perceives lethal injection as a medical procedure legally sanctioned by the state, is the doctor essentially fulfilling a duty to society or can the doctor shun such procedures in favor of protecting individual ethical and moral values?
The death penalty is one of the few controversial subjects that remains a very grey area for me. It's not that I'm indifferent; it's that I'm not informed enough to have a firm belief either way (for or against). Reading about this aspect of it makes me realize even more the intricate complexities it entails.
