http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/ap_on_...ornia_execution

A Federal Judge used a ridiculuous interpretation of the law to force his AntiDeath Penalty beliefs onto the state. Basically, the lethal injection can only be administered by a licensed medical professional, which effectively outlaws the Death Penalty in California because its against medical ethics for a Doctor or Nurse to carry out the Death Penalty (Dr. Kevorkian would be considered a Renegade Doctor). If California switches to the Gas Chamber, the same Federal Judge could use his same interpretation to make that execution method illegal.

So the Question for debate is
Is it reasonable for a Federal Judge to allow only licensed medical professionals to carry out the death penalty?

Full disclosure: I am against the death penalty in all circumstances, so take this with a grain of salt.

In this case, the judge is reacting to challenges which have recently arisen as to whether lethal injection is "cruel and unusual." The crux of the question is whether the prisoner experiences pain during the execution process.

(By the way, I predict that this is going to be a huge issue in the death penalty debate. The lethal injection method of execution, if anything, would appear to be the most painless method currently being used. Expect other methods to face similar challenges.)

At this point, no doubt some supporters of the death penalty will dismiss the issue of pain during execution as trivial. Some may hope that the prisoner experiences as much pain as possible. Be that as it may, it seems likely that courts are going to insist that execution be painless.

The judge in this case is trying to make 100% sure that the prisoner is fully unconscious at the time of execution. This requires the judgement of a medical professional. It does not require that the medical professional actually carry out the execution itself; however, it does require that they be willing to advise the prison officials of the state of the prisoner's consciousness. Apparently, the two anesthesiologists assigned to witness the execution were not willing to do this, even if they were not to be directly involved in the execution process itself.

Link



After they refused, the judge offered the state the chance to use a one-drug method of execution (the drug which causes unconsciousness) instead of the usual three-drug method (using two drugs which cause death after the first drug causes unconsciousness.) Since this is a method which has never been used before, it seems reasonable that it be administered by a medical professional.

I think the judge is being too strict on the definition of pain. Nobody likes the sight of needles but the State of California is making reasonable effort to make sure that the execution is not torture. Nobody can be absolutely sure that the condemned murderer feels no pain whatsoever during the execution. The worst that can happen is that the State of California gives the condemmed murderer too much pain medication. (They are trying to execute him, right?) When you're trying to execute someone, you don't worry about whether you give them too much medication. A Doctor's job is to give the correct dosage and make sure a patient lives, which is the opposite of execution.

By making reasonable effort to avoid cruel and unusual, the State of California is not putting the condemned man in a gladiator ring or burning him at the stake.

I wonder what's meant by "medical professionals". Would veterinarians be acceptable within the meaning of the judge's order? They're accustomed to putting down animals all the time in a humane fashion, so they should know how to do this right. Plus, there wouldn't be the same ethical dilemma that treaters of humans would face, because veterinarians don't (as I understand it, anyway) take the oath of Hippocrates.