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.
1 comment:
Katie,
I think that your post can be more or less summed up in one word: hypocrisy. As virtuous and noble the medical profession is, it is tainted by hypocrisy. Of course, no doctor would ever assume that what he does constitutes harm, whether it is a late term abortionist or the doctor who facilitates an execution or even, and I noticed this was not mentioned, the doctor who prescribes medication to euthanize a terminally ill cancer patient. Do no harm is a pretty absolute statement. And that is the problem.
Our society has become inundated with the belief that orders are subject to routine reexamination and reinterpretation or should only be looked upon as guidelines. The 10 Commandments have, for today's society, have become the 10 suggestions.
And the hypocrisy doesn't stop there. You are right to point out that many pro-lifers are not as concerned with preserving the lives of those men and women who are executed by the state. That, of course, opens the whole death penalty debate. As anti-death penalty as I am, it is at least a good thing that a doctor administers the execution so that it is done as painlessly and humanely as possible. At the same time, keep in mind that the death penalty can only be given after due process of law in a court of law. Such protection is not accorded to the unborn whose lives are at the will of the women who carry them.
I don't know if this is another chapter in the book, but what about the doctors who prescribe an overdose of drugs for those who are terminally ill and wish to end their lives. There are seveal states, of which Washington is one, which allow certain physicians to do precisely that. These doctors are doing harm; they are ending lives. Why is this not mentioned in the book (it may be later, I hope)? Could it be because of politics?
Let's face it: hypocrisy is synonyous with politics. Modern politics tells us that it abortion must be protected at all times since it has been elevated to a sacrament by the political left as a true indication that the oppression of women in this country is indeed over. Modern politics also tell us that criminals, especially those who have committed violent crimes against women and children, must also forfeit their lives. Modern politics tells us that ending one's life must be preserved because individual choice is at stake.
What is inherently left out of the equation in all of this is moral responsibility. We demand it, yet we throw it aside because of our own individual interpretations as to what is right. I certainly grant that you cannot legislate morality. Nor should you as morality is encoded in all of our heart. We are a society built upon the precepts of Sinai and Olympus that stretch back thousands of years. Of course, we see ourselves as the supreme moral arbiters which allow us to keep or jettison or reinterpret our cultural morality as we see fit. We must remember, above all, that the phrase "Do no harm" is from the Hippocratic Oath. Who was Hippocrates? A Greek physician. So much of our current legacy depends on the Greeks, Romans and Hebrews, yet we have become morality surgeons excising at will what we find as incompatible with the individulistic mindset we employ for everything.
Post a Comment