Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SmithL
Two anesthesiologists scheduled to administer the lethal drugs for California's last scheduled execution back in February of 2006, withdrew at the last minute. They cited their professional ethics as physicians, which barred them from assisting at executions.

If their "professional ethics" prevented from taking part in the execution, why did they wait for "the last minute"? Shouldn't they have declined much earlier? This sounds like a political stunt to delay those executions.

6 posted on 04/18/2008 2:17:09 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Repeal 16-17
This sounds like a political stunt to delay those executions.

That is exactly what it was.

"The two unidentified anesthesiologists involved in the Morales case issued a statement after withdrawing from the impending execution, indicating that they had not initially envisioned playing a role in the administration of the lethal drugs the state uses to put inmates to death. However, after examining a Feb. 20 opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, it became clear to them that they might be called on to intervene "if any evidence of either pain or a return to consciousness arose.''

In other words, if for some reason Morales did not die as expected, they would be called on to order more drugs. "Any such intervention would clearly be medically unethical,'' they wrote in their statement."

STATE POSTPONES MORALES EXECUTION
Doctors' ethical dilemma: 'This is a job for an executioner, not a physician'

13 posted on 04/18/2008 4:24:22 PM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson