Home » » Capital Punishment » Doctors And Executions: A Complex Question Of Medicine, Ethics, And Law

Doctors And Executions: A Complex Question Of Medicine, Ethics, And Law

© Glenn Arnold

The horror stories are rampant. In one case, an Alabama death row prisoner's veins were so badly damaged from drug use that prison officials wanted to cut into one of his limbs to administer a lethal injection. In another case, after a nurse spent 39 minutes stabbing an inmate with a needle in a failed attempt to find a vein, a doctor put a line in through the inmate's neck. And then there's the story of a condemned man convulsing 18 times before a doctor ordered more intravenous poison to be administered.

One would expect that such incidents would be fodder strictly for those opposing capital punishment. However, both pro- and anti-death penalty advocates look to these incidents as support for the relatively new debate of the role of doctors in executions. And, much like the issue of the death penalty itself, the legal and ethical questions surrounding the role of doctors in executions are complex and difficult to answer.

Proponents of having doctors participate in executions argue that lethal injection is a medical procedure and thus a doctor should be present. Without a doctor, they argue, an execution would rest in the hands of prison staff, who are clearly untrained to perform such a procedure. Given that there is a history of complications in administering lethal injections, the death row inmate should have a doctor present.

However, anti-death penalty advocates argue that having a doctor help in an execution--even to simply declare death--is in conflict with the Hippocratic Oath. Since one of the principles of the Hippocratic Oath is "first, do no harm," many critics of having a doctor present believe that doctors should have no role whatsoever in putting a condemned person to death. They argue that lethal injection is simply a procedure that imitates a medical procedure; the goal of an execution, in basic terms, is to take a human life, whereas a true medical procedure is defined as a process of preserving life.

Countering this, some say that a physician's duty is to take care of and preserve life when possible, and if not possible, then to at least comfort and alleviate pain. A doctor participating in an execution is providing the inmate comfort and ensuring that the procedure is as humane as possible, they argue. Without a doctor, the prisoner could have a prolonged and possibly cruel execution.

Once again, though, activists denouncing the presence of physicians at executions make the point that lethal injections and death penalty sentences in general simply have nothing to do with the basic tenets of medicine; the administration of lethal injection is obviously not designed to improve one's health or well-being.