Posted on 02/21/2006 5:27:44 AM PST by Brilliant
SAN QUENTIN, California (Reuters) - The execution of a California man who raped and murdered an 17-year-old girl was delayed for at least 15 hours early on Tuesday because two court-appointed anesthesiologists walked off the job over ethical concerns.
The doctors backed out when the language in an early-morning U.S. District Court ruling did not sufficiently allay their ethical concerns, San Quentin State prison spokesman Lt. Vernell Crittendon said.
They were on hand after a court said the state must ensure the condemned man, Michael Morales, was in fact unconscious before a lethal injection was administered, thereby minimizing the pain he might suffer.
A federal judge had ordered prison officials to have one present in a ruling that was roundly condemned by medical groups on ethical grounds.
The execution was reschedule for 7:30 p.m. PST on Tuesday, Crittendon said.
"The district court order that followed the publication of the Ninth Circuit opinion does not sufficiently allay our concerns. While we contemplated a positive role that might enable us to verify a humane execution protocol for Mr. Morales, what is being asked of us now is ethically unacceptable," said a statement from the doctors read by Crittendon.
It was not immediately clear what the language of the ruling was that upset the doctors.
Defense attorneys had claimed last week that the use of the lethal injection was cruel and unusual punishment, barred by the Constitution. This prompted a judge to order prison officials to either alter the composition of the lethal chemicals used or make medical experts available to ensure unnecessary pain was not inflicted during the execution.
But after the doctors walked out, the state decided it will pursue the other option and change the mix of chemicals used in the injection.
Morales, 46, was sentenced to death in 1983 for the murder and rape of Terri Winchell of Lodi, California.
The execution was delayed three times late Monday and early Tuesday, the first time when Crittendon said the execution was delayed an hour so the prison warden could review the execution process with the anesthesiologist.
Two last-minute appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay of execution failed late on Monday.
In a statement last week, Dr. Priscilla Ray, chairwoman of the American Medical Association Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, condemned the ruling that required the anesthesiologists present.
"The use of a physician's clinical skill and judgment for purposes other than promoting an individual's health and welfare undermines a basic ethical foundation of medicine -- first do no harm," she said. "Requiring physicians to be involved in executions violates their oath to protect lives."
It suggests there are more than enough doctors in Oregon to do the job in California.
The doctors here refused to sedate a convicted murderer because they knew that after his sedation, he would be executed.
In Oregon, they will not only sedate an old lady who has done nothing wrong, they will give her a lethal dose. Like abortion, they kill the innocent with little regard for the enormous role they undertake.
What proof do you have that these particular physicians have particaped in prison abortions? Anesthesiologists aren't typically involved in abortions btw, so that makes your claim especially doubtful.
I love it when people make ignorant assumptions. I am not pro-choice, I just resent turning every conversation to abortion.
Sorry but it IS the watershed issue in this country. To borrow the phrase Francis Schaeffer used to title his book, it is perhaps THE prime indicator of 'How Then Shall We Live?," there is the tendency to turn many secondary discussions INTO a conversation on abortion as the rest of it turns ON that topic.
If we deny the sanctity of human life, nothing else really matters, does it?
And if you're over 50, you'd BETTER be concerned about how we view the beginning of the life cycle because there's a very real possibility that a population conditioned to accept the killing of the most defenseless of us in the former safety of their mothers' wombs can probably be convinced that euthanasia for what Margaret Sanger and her student, one Adolph Hitler, called "useless eaters."
Think about it.
Sorry, but don't agree at all. It is one of but many issues of importance that we face politically, and the rest really don't hinge on abortion no matter how much you or anyone else want them to. I have nothing against those who've made abortion their single issue, but I do resent it when they attempt to stifle conversation on all other topics by attempting to steer the conversation over to abortion.
'Anesthesiologists aren't typically involved in abortions'
Surgical abortion:
Up to 12 weeks: $340.00 for local anesthesia, $440.00 for general anesthesia
12 to 13.6 weeks: $540.00 for general anesthesia
14 to 15.6 weeks: $700.00 for general anesthesia
Having a GYN doc to administer general anesthesia is like
hiring a plumber to do electrical work.
http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/sexual_health/preg/abortion.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.