Are professional bodies legally able to limit what their members do professionally, o

[Gulliver Foyle]

The AMA is the Doctors' union, but they can't say that, because 'Unions are bad, m'kay?'

And like other unions, they advocate and lobby for their members.

Well in an Irish context, the IMO are both the doctors' union and the regulatory body for doctors. It's the same for accountants, soliciors and barristers and other white collar professions not part of the civil or public service. This is very much a bad idea personally because it's hard to discipline a bad practitioner while simultaneously advocating for them.

 

[ahhell]

The AMA is the Doctors' union, but they can't say that, because 'Unions are bad, m'kay?'

And like other unions, they advocate and lobby for their members.

And also because they're not a union.

That. The AMA advocates and lobbies sure, they don't negotiate with employers.

 

[Chanakya]

This guy, Thomas Creech, who'd been on death row for decades, when he was finally wheeled out to be dispatched off, apparently they couldn't find a vein to inject the lethal injection into. There's 8 entry points apparently, none of which they could get through to.

While there's much to discuss there, including the length of time he spent stewing on death row, and the efficacy of this method of execution; but what was interesting, what might be the focus of discussion, as far as this particular thread, would be the fact there actually was a "medical team" attending to him. Lots of reports out there, and they all refer to terms like "medical team" or "medical professionals" or "health care professionals" or "medical staff", and the like.

Which would be what? Doctors? Nurses? Paramedics?


Question: Is this standard practice, having a "medical team" to assist during executions? How does/did this execution taboo apply, or not apply, to them?


If we had the answer to that, then that might help answer in full the question this thread was all about.

__________

None of the reports that I checked out go into any kind of detail. Except, to an extent, for one that I found, this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LYKaA46s5s .

It's a news report from KTVB, an Idaho-based news channel. It's around 8½ minutes long. They have (just a bit) more detail on the "medical staff" part. The medical team apparently consisted of 3 medical staff. (No, they don't mention what kind of staff, whether doctors or nurses or paramedics.) They were all three anonymous. So much so that they kept themselves all covered up, so that the witnesses there didn't get a peek at who they were. Nothing is (publicly) known about them, except that at least one of them has assisted at least once in an execution prior to this. And they were all three volunteers, the report says, which I suppose means they were not paid for doing this.

 

[Checkmite]

It could be the case that they are "medical staff" purely in the sense that they are performing a medical function; i.e., they really are just public volunteers with minimal or no training beyond say a clinical lab assistant cert or something like that.

It's also possible that they are trained medical professionals who are secretly or openly in violation of their professional association's ethical guidelines, but the state is selectively ignoring that because the state obviously has an interest in having access to this particular service.

 

[theprestige]

It could also be the case that the news outlets are talking out their ass and have no idea one way or the other. They needed a term to report what was going on, without having to do any actual investigative journalism, corroboration, fact-checking, etc. "Medical staff" is just vague enough to be technically correct regardless of the specific details of the staff in question. So it's probably a safe term to use if you don't know the specific details. And they can always issue a correction later if it turns out to be too far out of bounds.

 

[Chanakya]

It could be the case that they are "medical staff" purely in the sense that they are performing a medical function; i.e., they really are just public volunteers with minimal or no training beyond say a clinical lab assistant cert or something like that.

Could be, sure. Seems very hush hush, the reports, at least those I happened to see.

It's also possible that they are trained medical professionals who are secretly or openly in violation of their professional association's ethical guidelines, but the state is selectively ignoring that because the state obviously has an interest in having access to this particular service.

Again, could be, sure. But lots of further questions suggest themselves:

Was this a one-off, or is this a done thing, having "medical staff" attending executions?

And to ask what I've been asking throughout, Why exactly is it such a big deal if these guys decide it is okay for them to do this? Is this taboo, this bit of ethics, baked into state boards' licencing requirements? (The AMA prescription, while crystal clear, is apparently not binding. That is, you can't be part of AMA and still do this; but that should not hurt your career overly much, is the impression I get from this thread, and in any case way more of doctors are non-members than are AMA members.)

 

[Chanakya]

It could also be the case that the news outlets are talking out their ass and have no idea one way or the other. They needed a term to report what was going on, without having to do any actual investigative journalism, corroboration, fact-checking, etc. "Medical staff" is just vague enough to be technically correct regardless of the specific details of the staff in question. So it's probably a safe term to use if you don't know the specific details. And they can always issue a correction later if it turns out to be too far out of bounds.

That's possible too, sure. It does seem very hush hush, this "medical staff" thing. (And I suppose this wouldn't have been spoken of at all if the execution had got through per plan. I guess it's only because everything went so unexpectedly wrong that people are talking about this. Which makes me wonder, Was this a one-off, having "medical staff" do this thing over at Idaho, or is this SOP during executions?)

 

[Checkmite]

It could also be the case that the news outlets are talking out their ass and have no idea one way or the other.

They're reporting on the public statements made by the state agencies. It's not necessarily their job in this particular situation to put words in the government's mouth; and in this case, where the story is that this particular convict wasn't executed because a good vein couldn't be found, it's not really some kind of journalistic mandate to crack "what 'medical team' means" wide open. Self-evidently, the medical team must be people who know how to start an IV and monitor vital signs; it's all they need to do, and I don't think deep investigative journalism is really called for.

Traditionally people directly involved in judicial executions across cultures and societies are kept anonymous for clear personal safety reasons. It's not some kind of skullduggery or evidence of a coverup; the execution itself obviously isn't something secret.

 

[Chanakya]

They're reporting on the public statements made by the state agencies. It's not necessarily their job in this particular situation to put words in the government's mouth; and in this case, where the story is that this particular convict wasn't executed because a good vein couldn't be found, it's not really some kind of journalistic mandate to crack "what 'medical team' means" wide open. Self-evidently, the medical team must be people who know how to start an IV and monitor vital signs; it's all they need to do, and I don't think deep investigative journalism is really called for.

Traditionally people directly involved in judicial executions across cultures and societies are kept anonymous for clear personal safety reasons. It's not some kind of skullduggery or evidence of a coverup; the execution itself obviously isn't something secret.

Is that true, though?

It could be, I myself don't really know one way or the other. But is it actually true that executioners, which would mean the guy that switches on the oven to fry them, or the hangman, or the guys firing the rifles and the guy that barks out the command to shoot, are actually kept anonymous?

Why I kinda sorta doubt it, just a little bit, is for two reasons:

One, I remember zooterkin mentioning, in the other thread, about some specific family that's the executioner. And he named the family. (I remember that, because I remember thinking it a bit weird at the time that executing --- executionering? whatever --- should be some particular family's trade.)

Two, I vaguely remember having read the interview of some guy a long time ago, who was an executioner, openly and publically talking about it. (This latter with a pinch of salt, because very iffy recollection. It might even have been a novel or something.)


Do you actually know that for a fact, that anonymity thing? No need to air out citations, if you're sure then I'm happy to take your word for it.

 

[Chanakya]

This Idaho Statesman news report goes into a little more detail about the "medical professionals" involved in the botched execution.

Specifically as it relates to the thread topic, the report says the following:

In a 2022 NPR interview, Dunham said executions are against all medical association guidelines and frequently are performed by people without a medical background. “Lethal injection looks like a medical procedure, but it’s not a medical procedure,” Dunham told NPR.

It would appear from this that not all, or even most, executions are attended by "medical professionals", however defined. That seems settled, assuming the guy Dunham knows what he's taking about, and no reason why he shouldn't.

IDOC officials keep the identities of execution staffers secret

Not just these "medical" types, but all staff, it appears, that are involved. So Checkmite's view seems correct, at least as far as Idaho.

these are people who, in their day jobs, people’s lives depend on their ability to establish an IV

What kind of people have day jobs that involve people's lives depending on their ability to establish an IV? That seems to indicate the "medical team" involved in this specific case were actually either doctors and/or nurses and/or paramedics.

(Are there any other professionals, other than these three types, that routinely do the IV thing, and do it in situations where the life of patients would depend on it? I can't think of any, myself, but I suppose it's possible. If anyone's aware of any category beyond these three, then maybe you could weigh in. Otherwise I'll take it that in this specific case at any rate, even if not generally, actual healthcare professionals—either doctors or else nurses or else paramedics—were involved, three of them in fact.)

 

[Chanakya]

Phlebotomists, apparently. As discussed in the other thread, thanks Thermal.

Assuming Phlebos don't have to go to Phlebo school, and don't swear undying oaths over Hippo blood, and aren't full-on part of the medico guild, like nurses and docs are; and assuming these three were Phlebos: then that would explain both how come they were there where docs and nurses fear to tread; and also why they were unable to preempt this by examining the guy the day before or the week before, and get the butchering session postponed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Phlebotomists, apparently. As discussed in the other thread, thanks Thermal.

Assuming Phlebos don't have to go to Phlebo school, and don't swear undying oaths over Hippo blood, and aren't full-on part of the medico guild, like nurses and docs are; and assuming these three were Phlebos: then that would explain both how come they were there where docs and nurses fear to tread; and also why they were unable to preempt this by examining the guy the day before or the week before, and get the butchering session postponed.

Your imaginary world continues. Why would health care professionals fear to tread? You just can't let go, can you, of your initial false premise about why physicians or nurses might not want to participate in an execution?

 

[Chanakya]

Your imaginary world continues. Why would health care professionals fear to tread? You just can't let go, can you, of your initial false premise about why physicians or nurses might not want to participate in an execution?

FSM help us, why can't you let this now-comic-bordering-on-pathetic snippiness go, and just clearly answer the questions posed? Or else honestly admit to ignorance about all of the details being discussed here?

Do doctors and nurses ever do this thing? If not, why not? When so many folks are being killed, then it makes sound ethical sense to ease their inevitable end through application of medical expertise, even for those completely averse to capital punishments. Why exactly hasn't anyone at all, not even a very very very small minority, stepped up to do this thing basis that generally sound moral argument? If some doctor decides to do this tomorrow, then what exactly will happen to him? Do you actually know that, or are you trying to hide your cluelessness behind this absurd bluster? What exactly will happen to the careers of doctors who give AMA the middle finger on this one issue, either by interpretating Hippocrates differently on this one issue, or else giving Hippocrates the middle finger as well on this one issue? Are these norms baked into state boards' licencing norms?

These questions, and more, have been asked clearly many times. If you know the answers, why don't you share that knowledge? If you don't know the answers, why don't you stop making a fool of yourself with this completely weird bluster?

Why can't you wrap your head around the repeatedly clarified fact that I'm not trying to establish some particular a priori conclusion in this thread, but only trying to arrive at the actual answers, whatever they may be. Just go back and answer the questions already asked, cordially enough in past posts. Or, I guess, don't, and continue this weirdo act of yours.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Is that true, though?

It could be, I myself don't really know one way or the other. But is it actually true that executioners, which would mean the guy that switches on the oven to fry them, or the hangman, or the guys firing the rifles and the guy that barks out the command to shoot, are actually kept anonymous?

Why I kinda sorta doubt it, just a little bit, is for two reasons:

One, I remember zooterkin mentioning, in the other thread, about some specific family that's the executioner. And he named the family. (I remember that, because I remember thinking it a bit weird at the time that executing --- executionering? whatever --- should be some particular family's trade.)

Two, I vaguely remember having read the interview of some guy a long time ago, who was an executioner, openly and publically talking about it. (This latter with a pinch of salt, because very iffy recollection. It might even have been a novel or something.)


Do you actually know that for a fact, that anonymity thing? No need to air out citations, if you're sure then I'm happy to take your word for it.

It's fairly true for western European and North American nations. I suspect it's predominantly true (not universal) for most nations with a strong christian background, although I'm not sure it's as true for catholic versus protestant influences. I would speculate that it's not appropriate to generalize that position to nations that were founded in or strongly influenced by non-judeo-christian beliefs.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

FSM help us, why can't you let this now-comic-bordering-on-pathetic snippiness go, and just clearly answer the questions posed? Or else honestly admit to ignorance about all of the details being discussed here?

Do doctors and nurses ever do this thing? If not, why not?

Because they don't want to, not because they are afraid to.

[snip] If some doctor decides to do this tomorrow, then what exactly will happen to him?

Nothing would happen to them.


I've answered all your questions. If you don't like the answers that's your problem but stop lying saying I haven't answered them. You have some bizarre beliefs and I can't fix that with facts.

 

[Chanakya]

It's fairly true for western European and North American nations. I suspect it's predominantly true (not universal) for most nations with a strong christian background, although I'm not sure it's as true for catholic versus protestant influences. I would speculate that it's not appropriate to generalize that position to nations that were founded in or strongly influenced by non-judeo-christian beliefs.

That's an interesting POV, the religion angle. Never thought of it that way. ...To be honest, not quite sure I follow the reasoning! How do you think religion enters into all of this?

Also, I'll ask you what I'd asked Checkmite. Are you merely thinking aloud when you say this, speculating as it were --- and it is perfectly fine if you are, it is precisely to have this kind of conversation that I started this thread! --- or do you think you actually know this with some degree of surety? Like I said to him, in the other thread I remember there was mention of a particular family that has happened to supply executioners, and the poster actually mentioned the family by name, which means it is publicly known, that name. I haven't checked, but I don't think zooterkin was speaking about some Arab or African or Asian country, although I've forgotten the name but I remember it wasn't something exotic. Given that, I wonder how this anonymity idea holds up, and what you base this opinion on.

(Like I said, it's fine if you just spend five minutes to jot down your thoughts on this. No need to necessarily spend time looking up links and preparing a formal defence of your thesis! Although obviously, if you wish to do that, that's fine too, either way.)

 

[Chanakya]

Because they don't want to, not because they are afraid to.

What do you base this opinion on? Have you spoken to doctors about this specific thing, or maybe seen reports and interviews?

Nothing would happen to them.

Great, I take on board your view, as someone who’s spent long years in the medical industry, that all of those posters in that thread who think otherwise are completely mistaken, and that absolutely nothing would happen to a doctor if they decided to go ahead and assist with executions.

I've answered all your questions.

You've cut out some portions from my post. And left unaddressed the questions in the past posts. Forget the latter for now, but as far as the former:

1. Is there anything about ethical norms, specifically as it relates to executions, that might be baked into state boards’ licencing requirements?
(And if you know the answer, then a simple unequivocal Yes or No will suffice. Although a more detailed discussion, over and above a brief Yes or No, will be very welcome should you want to supply it.)

2. An ethical/moral argument can be made, that it makes ethical sense to do all you can to ease the suffering of those who must in any case die. Given that they’ll be killed ineptly and maybe die painfully if you don’t intervene, you may well find it ethical to intervene, provided the laws let you. (Generic “you”, obviously.)

Of the millions of doctors now and over the last one or two or three generations, is it a fact that absolutely no one, not even a very small minority, thought this way, and felt impelled to act? That could be the case, but, like I asked: how do you know that, how do you arrive at the answer that “they don’t want to”? Have you actually spoken with some doctors about this?

If you don't like the answers that's your problem but stop lying saying I haven't answered them. You have some bizarre beliefs and I can't fix that with facts.

Again with the voices in your head. Despite my telling you repeatedly this thread's an open-ended discussion, in other words there's no question of disliking any conclusion that's reasonably presented, you continue to imagine that I might not like that particular conclusion. Stop this nonsense once and for all, please.

As for the "bizarre beliefs": those are not my beliefs, they are the beliefs of those who said that in the other thread. All I'm doing is examining them here. Amazing that you can't wrap your head around that simple idea despite this having been told to you repeatedly.

And no, you haven’t actually answered the questions, not really: and here’s why: You did say, one time, that there’s no legal reason why doctors can’t participate in executions; but the reasonable interpretation of that is that doctors won’t be hauled up in courts of law as a result. Might their licences be affected, like they are if they enter into relationships with their patients for instance? Might they face other career setbacks as a results, maybe termination of employment? Those are very reasonable follow-up questions to ask; and I did ask them, very clearly; and you ignored my follow-up questions. So no, you haven’t actually answered even that particular question really; and nor all of the other questions in past posts, for instance my request to examine the conclusions thus far and "loose ends" that I'd presented, with a request to examine them and present your (generic your) opinion on, in my post #104.

 

[dirtywick]

it depends on what you meant by traditionally. there was a much longer time historically when things like execution was handled by a professional executioner, who was likely also a pretty good torturer. or do you mean traditionally within the confines of modern criminal justice system.

 

[Chanakya]

it depends on what you meant by traditionally. there was a much longer time historically when things like execution was handled by a professional executioner, who was likely also a pretty good torturer. or do you mean traditionally within the confines of modern criminal justice system.

If you're asking me, then, you know, I hadn't really thought about it that way. That is, in terms of the norms about anonymity having been different in times past, than they're now. ...Thinking about this now, I guess what would actually matter, as far as I'm concerned, is what the situation is like now. What it was like in times past would also be interesting to know, sure, but only incidentally.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's an interesting POV, the religion angle. Never thought of it that way. ...To be honest, not quite sure I follow the reasoning! How do you think religion enters into all of this?

Suicide being viewed as a sin is a strong element of why euthanasia is illegal in predominantly judeo-christian nations. There also tends to be a religious basis to what is considered "murder" and in what contexts. Social acceptance of execution has tended to be stronger in catholic and muslim nations than protestant ones; also more acceptable in a broader set of circumstances within a lot of hindu-based areas. I'm less familiar with shinto or the eastern religions and how that plays in. I know that for shinto nations, suicide is often consider the noble thing to do and isn't considered a sin at all.

Also, I'll ask you what I'd asked Checkmite. Are you merely thinking aloud when you say this, speculating as it were --- and it is perfectly fine if you are, it is precisely to have this kind of conversation that I started this thread! --- or do you think you actually know this with some degree of surety? Like I said to him, in the other thread I remember there was mention of a particular family that has happened to supply executioners, and the poster actually mentioned the family by name, which means it is publicly known, that name. I haven't checked, but I don't think zooterkin was speaking about some Arab or African or Asian country, although I've forgotten the name but I remember it wasn't something exotic. Given that, I wonder how this anonymity idea holds up, and what you base this opinion on.

(Like I said, it's fine if you just spend five minutes to jot down your thoughts on this. No need to necessarily spend time looking up links and preparing a formal defence of your thesis! Although obviously, if you wish to do that, that's fine too, either way.)

It's speculative, based on observations combined with some passing study of world religions. There's no surety, just correlation with some rationale involved.

I mentioned that execution has tended to be more acceptable in catholic-based nations than protestant-based nations above. That's definitely not a hard rule, especially since protestantism is pretty new, only about 500 years old. So pretty much all of the european nations were catholic until protestantism took hold.

While there are a lot of differences between catholic (and other orthodox christian religions) and protestantism (with its 7,000 sects), one of the fundamental differences is determinism versus free will. Catholics generally believe that god created humans and imbued us with free will - thus we are solely responsible for our evils. Protestants generally believe that god created humans and set us in motion, this every act we take is the act that god has decreed we must take and we can do nothing else. Within that context, execution for sins or crimes would make a lot more sense in a catholic framework - it makes little sense to punish someone for something they have no control over from a protestant perspective.

That said those generalities are *extremely* generalized! Neither of those descriptions is perfectly true, and they're definitely a lot more squishy in modern times. I would say this is because religion isn't handed down by (a nonexistent) god, but is a purely human invention. And as such, it evolves within our societies. As social views shift, so too do views of what is considered a sin, as well as what the role of punishment is within the context of a justice system.