I've seen a handful of "Parents of heart donor listen to the heart beat in the recipient" stories over the years, so apparently some information is available.
Why not hanging for carrying out the death penalty?
- Thread starter Darat
- Start date
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
And perhaps medical professionals are reluctant to kill people?
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
I'm a bit ...skeptical?... about all doctors and all nurses refusing to assist in executions. I mean, that speaks well of them, and it's decent of them, sure. It speaks to their sensibilities, and their incorruptible nature, and their integrity, and their respect for life. Which is why I find it odd. Because, while absolutely, healing is without doubt a noble profession, and many/most doctors do do their best, sure; but doctors of questionable character, ranging from the willing-to-cut-corners all the way to greedy-amoral-complete-scumbag-lowlife, isn't exactly unheard of. I don't know about how it actually is, but speaking generally, I find it surprising that despite paying good money they don't find doctors willing to do this thing. Maybe they're not paying good money? If that's the case, then it's easily remedied.
(Not saying a doctor willing to double up as executioner, or maybe specialize as executioner, makes them a scumbag. Just, I find it hard to believe that all doctors, without exception, are so hung up on the ethical aspect of it.)
(Not saying a doctor willing to double up as executioner, or maybe specialize as executioner, makes them a scumbag. Just, I find it hard to believe that all doctors, without exception, are so hung up on the ethical aspect of it.)
Last edited:
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
More likely their professional associations have a policy against it. Want to keep your license to practice? Don't participate in executions.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
It is a pretty obvious violation of their Hippopotamus Oath.
Quite, since people like James GrigsonWP (the Texas psychiatrist who made a career of declaring defendants in capital trials as utter savages who would happily murder again) showed that medical professionals aren't immune to being complete and utter sadists.
Last edited:
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
I don't know, I'm not sure this adds up. Sure, professional associations can bar someone for doing something wrong. But if, as far as the law is concerned, it is legal to assist in executions, then would medical associations, for instance, be able to bar someone that goes ahead and does that legally mandated thing? Wouldn't their attempting to do that itself be what is illegal?
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Funnily enough, a lot of people who support the death penalty oppose euthanasia. Apparently it's only okay to kill people if they don't want to die.
Thermal
August Member
Well...yeah. What's the fun in killing someone who actually wants it? Capital punishment is about flexing, not compassion and dignity. That's for weenies
No I mean in the sense that "No doctor will dare do it because of the Hippocratic Oath" thing.
You're old enough to remember how controversial Kevorkian was. (Although to be fair dude had other weird ideas beyond assisted suicide.)
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
The oath is "do no harm". Euthanasia to alleviate suffering is not, depending on the case, doing harm. In fact in some cases not doing euthanasia is doing harm.
But in execution it's definitely doing harm, unless the condemned also happens to be suffering from a terminal illness which would merit consideration of euthanasia regardless of the criminal conviction.
Thermal
August Member
Doctors do harm all the time, usually with good intentions. Amputation, for instance. So I think it might be better phrased as fo no net harm, or gratuitous harm. Then you're back to whether executing one net negative guy is a net plus or minus.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
Professional licensing boards can pull your license for any number of non-illegal actions for a wide variety of professions.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
Comparing an amputation where necessary to save the patient isn't really the same as ending the patients life because doing so would be a net positive to society*. You'd also need to show that (specifically for this last execution), killing someone 36 years after he committed a murder does, well, anything to benefit society versus keeping him locked up. And I do not see how it benefited society.
* and holy beejus if thats our new morality for doctors we're in a dystopia. Think about it... all the organs we can harvest and the lives that can be saved by euthanizing this ne'er do well fellow.
ETA: what if a doctor had a terminal cancer patient in his care, and knew that if he harvested his organs NOW he could save 3 patients lives, but waiting until the patient naturally died, may mean the organs are no longer viable. Net benefit to society means involuntary euthanasia.
Last edited:
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
No. Medical ethics doesn't get preempted by the judicial system, or notions of perceived social benefit trumping the individual patient. Medical ethics deals with medical practice, not civic functions.
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
I really don't think that will apply here. I personally am completely against the death penalty; but if the government and the court mandate for the death penalty, and the government itself directly carries out death penalties, then medical associations penalizing doctors for assisting in that process would amount to that association directly challenging the government's mandate. Now conceivably some private societies might get away with doing that, but professional associations, that actually issue licenses that are the legal basis for practicing medicine, doing that and getting away with it? Sounds unlikely to me.
(But of course, if you actually know that to be the case, that that actually happens, medical associations going on record saying that they'll not stand for doctors assisting in executions, then sure, it would be a case of it is what it is.)
Thermal
August Member
@ lobos and TM:
My point was that Do No Harm doesn't really mean anything, and shouldn't be taken as inviolate as it often is, and wouldn't be prohibitive to performing executions. What is harm, to the patient or otherwise, is an ambiguous term in a lot of contexts.
My point was that Do No Harm doesn't really mean anything, and shouldn't be taken as inviolate as it often is, and wouldn't be prohibitive to performing executions. What is harm, to the patient or otherwise, is an ambiguous term in a lot of contexts.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
The only context that matters to healthcare is the healthcare context. Full stop. They're going to fix the broken leg whether it belongs to an innocent child or a convicted killer. They're not going to poison a healthy person to death whether it's an innocent child or a convicted killer. Philosophical musings about the ultimate meaning of harm across a spectrum of contexts and consequences is not considered. That's for Phi 101 class, not medical practice.
Thermal
August Member
I don't think your quite following my reasoning. This mother ****** over here *points to convicted murderer* is going to be executed. The state has things like rope and electric chairs. Can it be argued (whether or not you agree) that harm, in the form of suffering, can be averted with a doctor's professional medical intervention?