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."
I would join a firing squad without a qualm.
I would not start an IV.
There is no way a death sentence can be carried out that is not "cruel" or "unusual."
That might be true in the abstract. However, we're dealing with "cruel and unsual" as that phrase is used in the Constitution. And obviously, it does not ban the death penalty because the guys who wrote the Constitution did not intend it to ban the death penalty. They had the death penalty, and they did not think that this Constitutional language changed the law. So the term "cruel and unusual" as used in the Constitution obviously means something different.
I think you're pretty much correct.Many people who are familiar with the original oath aren't aware that a "modern" one has replaced it at many medical school graduation ceremonies.And this modern one lacks,among other things,a noteworthy and noble"command" from the original:
"Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion."
In Texas a few years ago, they took a guy in, hooked up the IVs, and there was some kind of confusion over whether a stay was going to be granted, so they left him hooked up and strapped down for several hours, took him off, then back to his cell and brought him back and executed him the next night. The libs were howling, of course.
The one bright spot is that Morales has a little more time to squirm and think about how he got where he is. Actually it is the delay that is cruel and unsual.
As I concluded in my post ...
How far behind this can Soylent Green be?
And it didn't take long for us to hear from yet ANOTHER apostle of Margaret Sanger and her crazed band of baby-killing nazi eugenicists.
Oh fer cryin' out loud! Change the method of execution to a 12-ga inserted into the mouth. Very quick and painless. No cruelty. No MDs needed.
yeah - an abortionist shouldn't have any problems with this.
Actually, being executed may well be less painful then dying of natural causes in most cases.
They should have just starved/dehydrated him to death. According to Michael Schiavo's attorney, he would have felt no pain at all.
How many anesthesiologists were present when this scumbag raped, tortured and murdered Terri Winchell?
There WILL be justice.
That's right.. worry that the murderer is comfortable... ignore the fact he raped tortured and killed a child, with no such concern.
Give me a bowie knife and lets just return to disembowling these monsters.
I think this is causing people some confusion. At least it confused me at first. The news made a big deal about the doctors walking out. Until I read the article I didn't know this was the first time they had been required to be present.
Pun intended?
Alas, no J&K unless they're on past 7 p.m. PST (Execution is set for 7:30 p.m. PST).
Thanks for the update. I thought original post had EST. Either time is fine for me, I just would have loved it to happen during the J&K show.
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.