Anesthesiologists in California raise ethical concerns

Kadydid · #1 (**permalink**) 02-21-2006, 06:28 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/21/ca....execution.ap/

SAN QUENTIN, California (AP) -- California on Tuesday postponed indefinitely the execution of a condemned killer amid a court battle over the state's method of lethal injection and the role doctors may play in the death chamber.

State officials notified the federal courts they would be unable to comply with a judge's order to have a medical profesional administer a lethal dose of barbiturate to Michael Morales in the execution chamber, a court spokeswoman said.

It was unclear when the execution would be carried out. Prison officials were not immediately available for comment.

Morales, 46, was supposed to die by lethal injection at 12:01 a.m. But the execution was put off until at least Tuesday night after the anesthesiologists objected that they might have to advise the executioner if the inmate woke up or appeared to suffer pain.

"Any such intervention would clearly be medically unethical," the doctors, whose identities were not released, said in a statement. "As a result, we have withdrawn from participation in this current process."

The doctors had been brought in by a federal judge after Morales' attorneys argued that the three-part lethal injection process violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The attorneys said a prisoner could feel excruciating pain from the last two chemicals if he were not fully sedated.

U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel gave prison officials a choice last week: bring in doctors to ensure Morales was properly anesthetized, or skip the usual paralyzing and heart-stopping drugs and execute him with an overdose of a sedative.

Prison officials had planned to press forward with the execution Tuesday night using the second option. The judge approved that decision, but said the sedative must be administered in the execution chamber by a person who is licensed by the state to inject medications intravenously. That group would include doctors, nurses and other medical technicians.

Morales' lawyers planned to appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the state notified the court late Tuesday afternoon that it did not intend to go forward with the execution.

The judge's ruling renewed an ethical debate that has persisted for many years about the proper role of doctors in executions and the suitability of the lethal injection method used in California and 35 other states.

The American Medical Association, the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the California Medical Association all opposed the anesthesiologists' participation as unethical and unprofessional.

The anesthesiologists ultimately withdrew after the judge wrote that they might have to demand that the executioner administer more sedatives through a separate intravenous line to make sure the prisoner is unconscious.

The anesthesiologists would have joined another doctor who is on duty at all California executions to declare the prisoner dead and ensure proper medical procedures are followed. The doctor does not insert any of the intravenous lines and is not in the room during the execution itself; typically the doctor watches the inmate's vital signs on electronic monitors outside the death chamber.

Deborah Denno, a Fordham University law professor and expert on lethal injection, said Fogel's order seemed "like a desperate measure."

"These are not circumstances by which somebody ought to be executed," she said. "It's never been done before like this."

The U.S. Supreme Court has never directly addressed the constitutionality of lethal injection or whether it causes inmates excessive pain.

Morales was condemned in 1983 for killing 17-year-old Terri Winchell, who was attacked with a hammer, stabbed and left to die half-naked in a vineyard.

Morales had plotted the killing with a gay cousin who was jealous of Winchell's relationship with another man. The cousin was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Thoughts?

roxrkool · #2 (**permalink**) 02-21-2006, 06:55 PM

If there is any question about the pain involved during lethal injections, I think I would rather see some outside research into the matter than have a doctor sit by the side of a state-mandated killing of an inmate.

midwifemommyofmany · #3 (**permalink**) 02-22-2006, 07:42 AM

The American Medical Association, the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the California Medical Association all opposed the anesthesiologists' participation as unethical and unprofessional.

Well I would have to agree, I think that it goes against the oath of "First do no harm". So I think it is unethical for an anesthesiologist to participate.

Its interesting to ponder. I was not aware of the in's and out's of lethal injection. I was under the impression that it was virtually painless.

sweet pickles · #4 (**permalink**) 02-25-2006, 05:28 AM

I still can muster up no sympathy for this piece of ****. It's so ironic that a man who first strangled (until the belt broke), then smashed the head with a hammer numerous times, then raped, and finally stabbed a 17 year old girl is worried about cruel and unusual punishment. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&feed=rss.news

On the bright side, maybe California can come up with a better way to exterminate these animals so they can finish with the rest of the lumps of crap waiting on death row. Or, they could always get rid of the death penalty and also decide that prison itself is cruel and inhumane punishment, even torture.

I do have a question though, assisted suicide, does this go against oaths as well? Has that been brought up in Oregon?

BabyHoosier · #5 (**permalink**) 02-25-2006, 07:22 AM

The thing that irritates the sh!t out of me about this is that it wasn't brought up sooner by the people with ethical concerns. I'm not a proponnent of the death penalty by any means, but I think this should have been brought up LONG before when it was.

michelemiller · #6 (**permalink**) 02-25-2006, 07:38 AM

the taking of any life is appalling. i'm glad doctors are finally taking a stand.

PiXiEs-N-DaIsIeS · #7 (**permalink**) 02-25-2006, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by sweet pickles

I still can muster up no sympathy for this piece of ****. It's so ironic that a man who first strangled (until the belt broke), then smashed the head with a hammer numerous times, then raped, and finally stabbed a 17 year old girl is worried about cruel and unusual punishment. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&feed=rss.news

Mumfie · #8 (**permalink**) 02-25-2006, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by PiXiEs-N-DaIsIeS

So you agree, do you? You do realise that it makes you no better than the man who killed that girl. You wanting someone, a person whom you have never met, to die, in pain. What does that say about you? Pathethic little person!

midwifemommyofmany · #9 (**permalink**) 02-25-2006, 02:16 PM

So you agree, do you? You do realise that it makes you no better than the man who killed that girl. You wanting someone, a person whom you have never met, to die, in pain. What does that say about you? Pathethic little person!

Gosh, I don't see it that way. The only trouble I have with the death penalty is that in order to have it there will inevitably be innocent people who die. Thats my fundamental problem. I have thought about the death penalty as being evil but then realized that if it were one of my family members that was killed, I would want the person who did it dead. It would then seem hypocritical of me to then object to the death penalty.

I don't honestly see how someones thoughts or beliefs make them "pathetic". Its obviously a highly emotionally charged issue.

sweet pickles · #10 (**permalink**) 02-25-2006, 04:17 PM

So Mumfie, what is the difference between you and a sad pathetic person like me? Would you prefer he rot in jail for the rest of his life? If so, does that make you any different than him since you would like this man whom you have never met to spend the rest of his life in a place like prison? Or, would you prefer he be let free like you and me? I take offense to the notion that I am no different than somebody who raped and murdered an innocent girl because the difference is I have never done that, which I think is a HUGE difference when comparing myself and this murderer.

midwifemommyof4 - I don't know how long you've been on the boards but we learned a few months ago that Mumfie is also offended by women that miscarry early on in their pregnancies and have it in their sigs. That's right, she's offended by other women's grief.