Physician Participation in Administration of Death Penalty is Legitimate
The question has been raised whether it is moral for a physician to participate in the administration of the death penalty. This is an issue that many professionals in the field have strong opinions about, regardless of their own personal beliefs about the death penalty in general. Physicians are traditionally practitioners of the healing arts; is using this knowledge to put someone to death a corruption of their professional ethics? In order to fully understand the issues surrounding physician participation in the death penalty, it is necessary to explore three main areas of analysis. First, we must survey the ethical justification for the death penalty. If the death penalty itself is morally unjustified, then physician participation in it is, by definition, wrong. Secondly, justification of the death penalty aside, do condemned criminals retain a right to health that the death penalty would violate? Finally, we will examine the special duties of the physician - even if the death penalty in general is justified, is there perhaps a subtler breach of ethical duties by inviting physician participation in the process?
Ethical Justification
Returning to our first sphere of inquiry, is the death penalty justified -- does it violate a prisoner's human right to health? Traditionally, two main explanations for the death penalty have been offered - deterrence and vengeance. The evidence on deterrence is doubtful at best. On the one hand, statistics do not indicate the existence of a significant deterrent effect. A United Nations committee studying capital punishment found that "the data which now exist show no correlation between the existence of capital...
... middle of paper ...
...viewed as a healthy relationship. For those doctors who believe in the death penalty, there should be no sanctions for participating in a legal procedure, which they are doing for the best interests of society, and in the name of justice.
Conclusion
By examining the justifications behind the death penalty and the human rights criminals retain upon being convicted of a felony, we were unable to deduce any legitimate grounds upon which physicians, or any health personnel, should be excluded from participating in executions. While some physicians would argue that participation by doctors in administering the death penalty amounts to a betrayal of the very precepts of medicine, I have attempted to provide an alternate perspective on the situation. Just as no doctor should be compelled to assist in an execution, no doctor should be banned from doing so, either.
Physicians face an ethical dilemma when confronting their patients who are suffering. Many have to choose between abiding by the law or ignoring the law and acting on their own beliefs by assisting in a patient’s suicide. Dr. Jack Kevorkian is certainly one doctor who has taken the illegal route in assisting in many of his patients suicides. In “Killer Doc,” William F. Buckley provides a brief overview of the case and informs his audience of the shocking incidents of Kevorkian’s performed euthanasia on Thomas Youk. In “Offering a Helping Hand to those Who Long to Die,” Mark Nichols compares the famous euthanasia doctors, Dr. Kevorkian and Austrailia’s Dr. Philip Nitschke.
There are many legal and ethical issues when discussing the topic of physician-assisted suicide (PAS). The legal issues are those regarding numerous court cases over the past few decades, the debate over how the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution comes into play, and the legalization vs. illegalization of this practice. The 14th Amendment states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). PAS in the past has been upheld as illegal due to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the constitution, but in recent years this same 14th amendment is also part of the reasoning for legalizing PAS, “nor shall any State deprive any person of…liberty” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). The ethical issues surrounding this topic include a patient’s autonomy and dignity and if PAS should be legalized everywhere. This paper is an analysis of the PAS debate and explores these different issues using a specific case that went to the supreme courts called Washington et al. v. Glucksberg et al.
Capital punishment is an age-old practice. It has been used in civilizations for millennia, and will continue to be used for millennia to come. Whether used for the right or wrong reasons, capital punishment is unmistakable in its various forms. From hangings, to firing squads, to lethal injections, capital punishment and the associated proceeding have evolved over time. There have been many arguments against capital punishment, many of which still hold true. As capital punishment has evolved over time, however, many of the most valid arguments have been proven all but null. Capital punishment still has its ethical and moral concerns, but as it has evolved over time these concerns have not necessarily become less valid, but fewer in number when specifically addressing capital punishment. The proceedings that come hand-in-hand with capital punishment, however, have become increasingly more rigorous and controversial and are the main focus of most capital punishment concerns.
This essay explores the views of doctors, of the general public, and of the original Hippocratic Oath on the practices of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Considerable reference material is employed - from professional sources.
The capital punishment has been cited as a reasonable sentence by those who advocate for retribution. This is essentially when it comes to justice so that people take full responsibility for their individual actions. Studies have proved that the decision to take away life of a person because they committed a certain crime serves to perpetuate the crime in question. It also serves to enhance the progress of organized and violent crime. It has been noted that various flaws in the justice system has led to the wrong conviction of innocent people. On the other hand, the guilty have also been set free, and a plethora of several cases has come up when a critical look at the capital punishment has been undertaken. Killers hardly kill their victims deliberately, but they probably act on anger, passion, or impulsively. In this regard, it is not proper to convict them exclusively without
Much debate has arisen over the years about the moral suitability of taking part in sexual intercourse before being married to your true love. In John Donne's “The Flea” this topic is brought up when the speaker of the poem is trying to convince his addressee to partake in sexual intercourse with him although they are not married, by showing her that the act would be no more sinful or shameful than the bite of a flea. He uses the flea as a conceit in three main ways: first, after they have both been bitten, the flea now represents their union by the mixing of bodily fluids. Second, the flea represents innocence and the potential child they may bear together. Finally, he tries to prove that once she yields to his seduction she will have lost no more honour than when she killed the flea.
times. I don't feel it was a very good way to go about telling someone
very little when he wrote this poem at age 21.* But we know that he
...volving the ethical and moral values that impact society today and in the course of time. Not only are doctors’ purposes being compromised with the proposition of active euthanasia, but also a religious and philosophical perspective. The exercise of assisted suicide would deteriorate the responsibility of the civil law and conclusively endanger its reason to protect and provide a just system. Even if one is not spiritually inclined or subject to moral or ethical conviction, the practice of physician assisted suicide promotes widespread abuse and influences society, climatically devaluing human life. It is not a question of terminally ill patients having the civil liberty to choose life or death; it is a matter of moral principle that upholds the community to a protective and answerable standard. It is not a humane option to negotiate ethical accuracy for autonomy.
With the legalization of assisted suicide, a number of issues have arisen. The ethical standards of physicians seem to be in decline as they forget what exactly their role in society is. The shameless killing that is being allowed to occur will create an inevitable slippery slope, in which other crimes will be legalized. Dr. Kevorkian may have been imprisoned for his actions, but they soon may become acceptable.
Physician-assisted suicide refers to the physician acting indirectly in the death of the patient -- providing the means for death. The ethics of PAS is a continually debated topic. The range of arguments in support and opposition of PAS are vast. Justice, compassion, the moral irrelevance of the difference between killing and letting die, individual liberty are many arguments for PAS. The distinction between killing and letting die, sanctity of life, "do no harm" principle of medicine, and the potential for abuse are some of the arguments in favor of making PAS illegal. However, self-determination, and ultimately respect for autonomy are relied on heavily as principle arguments in the PAS issue.
Some feel that a terminally ill patient should have a legal right to control the manner in which they die. Physicians and nurses have fought for the right to aid a patient in their death. Many families of the terminally ill have exhausted all of their funds caring for a dying patient and would prefer the option of assisted suicide to bankruptcy. While there are many strong opposing viewpoints, one of the strongest is that the terminally ill patient has the right to die in a humane, dignified manner. However, dignity in dying is not necessarily assured when a trusted doctor, whose professional ethics are to promote and maintain life, injects a terminally ill patient with a lethal dose of morphine.
He is suggesting that they are united in this flea and ,thus, would equally be united in intimacy. In addition, he states, "This flea is you and I, and this our marriage bed, and marriage temple is." The speaker is suggesting that through the flea the two are married. Again, the flea represents marriage, union, and consummation through intimacy. However, the woman crushes the flea, thus, refusing his request, and states that neither she nor he is weakened by its death.
Fleas were a popular subject of poetry in the Renaissance Era because poets were fascinated by the insects fearlessness and were inspired, soon becoming a popular subject among poets (Andy). Since the seventeenth century, the idea of “mingling of the blood” was an idea that Donne was interested, realizing that the courageous, tiny creature has drawn both of his blood and his mistress's blood which is something the woman wouldn't dare to do even to herself. As shown though analogy, tone, and symbolism, John Donne claims that there is no sin in being intimate in spite of marriage and that seduction is a powerful weapon.
Crime is everywhere. Wherever we look, we find criminals and crime. Criminals have become a part of our daily lives. Does this mean we let them be the darkness of our society? No, definitely not. Eliminating crime and criminals is our duty, and we cannot ignore it. Getting the rightly accused to a just punishment is very important. Some criminals commit a crime because they have no other option to survive, but some do it for fun. I do not advocate death penalty for everybody. A person, who stole bread from a grocery store, definitely does not deserve death penalty. However, a serial killer, who kills people for fun or for his personal gain, definitely deserves death penalty. Death penalty should continue in order to eliminate the garbage of our society. Not everybody deserves to die, but some people definitely do. I support death penalty because of several reasons. Firstly, I believe that death penalty serves as a deterrent and helps in reducing crime. Secondly, it is true that death penalty is irreversible, but it is hard to kill a wrongly convicted person due to the several chances given to the convicted to prove his innocence. Thirdly, death penalty assures safety of the society by eliminating these criminals. Finally, I believe in "lex tallionis" - a life for a life.