There is a very common anti death penalty slogan:

“Why do we kill people to show that killing people is wrong?”

We don’t. Even with no sanction, most folks know that committing murder is wrong.

We execute guilty murderers who have murdered innocent people.

The difference between crime and punishment, guilty murderers and their innocent victims is very clear to most.

The moral confusion exists when people blindly accept the amoral or immoral position that all killing is equal.

The anti death penalty folks are looking at an act — “killing” — and saying all killings are the same. Only an amoral person would equate acts, without considering the purpose behind them.

For those, like some anti death penalty folks, who believe all killing is morally equivalent, they would equate the slaughter of 6 million innocent Jews and 6-7 million additional innocents with the execution of those guilty murderers committing that slaughter. They would also equate the rape and murder of children with the execution of the rapist/murderer.

This is what the anti death penalty folks do, morally equate killing (murder) with the punishment for that murder, another killing (execution).

For such anti death penalty folks to be consistent, they must also equate holding people against their will (illegal kidnapping) with the sanction for it, the holding people against their will (legal incarceration) or the taking money away from people (illegal robbery) with a sanction for that, taking money away from people (legal restitution).

Most folks understand the moral differences.

Some anti death penalty folks are either incapable of knowing the moral differences between crime and punishment, guilty criminals and their innocent victims, or they are knowingly using a dishonest slogan by equating killing (murder) with killing (execution).

Either way, it’s time to stop it. It is just too grotesque a tool.

Some in the medical community have attempted to create an ethical prohibition against medical professionals involvement in state executions by invoking the famous “do no harm” credo and the Hippocratic Oath.

It is a dishonest effort. Neither reference is in the context of the state execution of murderers. I find the effort to ban medical professionals participation in executions an unethical effort to fabricate professional ethical standards, based upon personal anti death penalty feelings.

The Hippocratic Oath: Classical Version

The select Hippocratic Oath quote, in its original (translated) form, is

“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.” (1)

This is a prohibition against euthanasia and abortion and has nothing to do with the fabricated medical prohibition of participation in state sanctioned executions.

I am unaware of any other ancient texts or translations which indicate a historical context, with that quote, that prohibits physicians from participation in executions.

In 2004, Dr. Markel, a medical historian, writes, “There are two highly controversial vows in the original Hippocratic Oath that we continue to ponder and struggle with as a profession: the pledges never to participate in euthanasia and abortion.” (2)

In reality, these are, barely, controversial, now. They are, however, inconvenient. Dr. Markel’s article never mentions a context of state execution of murderers, because the oath has nothing to do with it.

Dr. Markel continues: “The Hippocratics’ reasons for refusing to participate in euthanasia may have been based on a philosophical or moral belief in preserving the sanctity of life or simply on their wish to avoid involvement in any act of assisted suicide, murder, or manslaughter.” (2)

Dr. Markel is speculating. What we do know is that it was a reference to euthanasia and abortion, specifically. There is not even speculation, by Dr. Markel, that the reference had anything to do with the state execution of murderers.

The following are ” . . .the results of a study . . . in which 157 deans of allopathic and osteopathic schools of medicine in Canada and the United States were surveyed regarding the use of the Hippocratic Oath”: (3)

1. In 1993, 98% of schools administered some form of the Oath.
2. In 1928, only 26% of schools administered some form of the Oath.
3. Only 1 school used the original Hippocratic Oath.
4. 68 schools used versions of the original Hippocratic Oath.
5. 100% of current Oaths pledge a commitment to patients.
6. Only 43% vow to be accountable for their actions.
7. 14% include a prohibition against euthanasia.
8. Only 11% invoke a diety.
9. 8% prohibit abortion.
10. Only 3% prohibit sexual contact with patients.

There is no mention of the state execution of murderers, because the Hippocratic Oath has nothing to do with it.

Although there is no prohibition on the death penalty, there is one against both euthanasia and abortion. Yet, various medical associations have fabricated an imagined ethical problem with the death penalty and have, nearly, fully accepted both abortion and euthanasia.

Now, only 3% prohibit sexual contact with patients, but the original Hippocratic Oath states:

“Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.”

100% pledge a commitment to their patients, but only 43% vow being accountable for their medical actions. This is a horrible standard of conduct.

With these survey results and with medical professionals bringing up the Hippocratic Oath, as if it has something to say in the death penalty debate, possibly we should, now, in the true context of euthanasia and abortion, and other issues, call it what it has become, the Hypocrisy Oath.

For example, In January 2007, The North Carolina Medical Board adopted a policy that physicians participating in executions may lose their licence. In 2009, The North Carolina Supreme Court vacated the Board’s policy, finding that they had exceeded their authority.

Did the Board attempt to prevent physicians from performing abortions or have they issued a statement condemning physicians’ participation in euthanasia? Of course not.

The Oath of Hippocrates – Modern Version

The modern version is, most often, identified as that penned by Louis Lasagna in 1964.

It states: “it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty.” (4)

This is in the context of killing innocent lives through either abortion or euthanasia.

Quite the about face.

The quote shows physicians’ acceptance of the responsibility of taking innocent lives.

Do No Harm

The famous physician credo “First, do no harm” (a phrase translated into Latin as “Primum non nocere”) is often mistakenly ascribed to the (Hippocratic) oath, although it appears nowhere in that venerable pledge.” (2)

“Hippocrates came closest to issuing this directive in his treatise Epidemics, in an axiom that reads, “As to disease, make a habit of two things — to help, or at least, to do no harm.” (2)

“As to disease”. Nothing else. There is no relevance outside medicine and, most certainly, no prohibition against medical professionals participation in the state execution of murderers.

Reason & Reality

Those ethical codes pertain to the medical profession, only, and to patients, only.

Judicial execution is not part of the medical profession and executions do not make death row inmates patients. Is that news?

The editors of The Public Library of Science (PLoS) Medicine agree. They write:

“Execution by lethal injection, even if it uses tools of intensive care such as intravenous tubing and beeping heart monitors, has the same relationship to medicine that an executioner’s axe has to surgery.” (“Lethal Injection Is Not Humane”, PLoS, 4/24/07).

So to, The American Society of Anesthesiologists:

“Although lethal injection mimics certain technical aspects of the practice of anesthesia, capital punishment in any form is not the practice of medicine. (“Statement on Physician Nonparticipation in Legally Authorized Executions,” 10/18/06).

Both confirm the obvious point: The state execution of murderers is not equivalent or connected to the medical treatment of patients. There is no ethical or moral connection. Hardly a mystery.

Any rational person can see that the state execution of murderers is not a medical treatment, but a criminal justice sanction. The basis for medical treatment is to improve the plight of the patient, for which the medical profession provides obvious and daily exceptions. The basis for execution is to carry out a criminal justice sentence where death is the sanction.

Doctors and nurses can be police and soldiers and can kill, when deemed appropriate, within those lines of duty and without violating the ethical codes of their medical profession, because there is no ethical connection. Similarly, medical professionals do not violate medical codes of ethics, when participating in the state execution of murderers.

Physicians are often part of double or triple blind studies where there is hope that the tested drugs may, someday, prove beneficial. The physicians and other researchers know that many patients, taking placebos or less effective drugs, will suffer more additional harm or death because they are not taking the subject drug or that the subject drug will actually harm or kill more patients than the placebo of other drugs used in the study.

Physicians knowingly harm individual patients, in direct contradiction to their “do no harm” oath.

For the greater good, those physicians sacrifice innocent, willing and brave patients. Of course, there have been medical experiments without consent and, even, today, they continue (“Critical Care Without Consent”, Washington Post, May 27, 2007; Page A01).

Physicians knowingly make exceptions to their “do no harm” requirement, every day, within their profession, where that code actually does apply. And, they should. There are obvious ethical nuances and we should consider and pay attention to them, as is done within the medical profession.

SEE DO NO HARM: Additional Notes, at bottom.

Physicians and medical institutions should chose ethical guidelines which are truly relevant to their profession.

Medical professionals need to stop the ridiculous ethical posturing and tell the truth – they don’t like the death penalty. In medical writings, against executions, you can easily find a strong bias, evidenced by use of the common and inaccurate anti death penalty claims, with no apparent effort at fact checking or balance. (5)

Any participation in executions by medical professionals should be a matter for their own personal conscience. In fact, 20-40% of doctors surveyed would participate in the execution process.

If this physician created mess had been about long standing medical ethics, based upon Hippocrates or “do no harm”, then there would be an effort to stop medical professionals from participating in euthanasia and abortion. In fact, the opposite has occurred. Instead, they have turned those obvious, historical ethical standards upside down and have fabricated, out of thin air, a prohibition against the death penalty.

Why? They’ve decided the formerly unethical medical practices of abortion and euthanasia are, now, a fine responsibility and that the non medical death penalty is prohibited by a fabricated medical ethic.

There is no foundation for an ethical prohibition against medical professionals participating in executions. Stop using personal bias to fabricate one.

It’s unethical.
———————–

DO NO HARM: Additional Notes:

40,000 to 100,000 innocents die, every year, in the US because of medical misadventure or improper medical treatment. (6)

It appears that some 500-1000 innocent patients die, every year, in the US, due to some type of medical misadventure, with anesthesia. (6)

There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US since 1900.

Furthermore, even with errors in lethal injection, those cases resulted in the death of the inmate – the intended outcome for the guilty murderer.

In the errors of medical professionals, we are speaking of a large number of deaths and injuries to innocent patients – the opposite of the intended outcome.

————–

1) The Hippocratic Oath: Classical Version, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_classical.html

2) “‘I Swear by Apollo’ – On Taking the Hippocratic Oath”, New England Journal of Medicine, May 13, 2004 article, by Howard Markel, PhD, MD, Director of the Center for the History of Medicine at the University of Michigan Medical School

3) “The Use of the Hippocratic Oath: A Review of 20th Century Practice and a Content Analysis of Oaths Administered in Medical Schools in the U.S. and Canada in 1993.” by Robert D. Orr, M.D. and Norman Pang, M.D. http://www.imagerynet.com/hippo.ama.html

4) The Hippocratic Oath – Modern Version, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

5) “An absolute: Doctors don’t kill”, op/ed, by Dr. Charles van der Horst, News and Observer, Dec 04, 2008). My response to him can be found as “Is Dr. van der Horst just ignorant or something else? Doc?” in the comments section for “Clap hands, here comes Charlie”, UNC Healthcare Blog, December 8, 2008, 4:30 pm
http://unchealthcare.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/clap-hands-here-comes-charlie/

6) “Deaths from Medical Misadventure”at
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/m/medical_misadventure/deaths.htm and
“Health Grades Quality Study: Patient Safety in American Hospitals, July 2004″
http://www.healthgrades.com/media/english/pdf/HG_Patient_Safety_Study_Final.pdf

Additional info

Dutch Protocol for Euthanasia

The following is a Dutch protocol for parenteral (intravenous) administration to obtain euthanasia:

Intravenous administration is the most reliable and rapid way to accomplish euthanasia and therefore can be safely recommended. A coma is first induced by intravenous administration of 20 mg/kg sodium thiopental (Nesdonal) in a small volume (10 ml physiological saline). Then a triple intravenous dose of a non-depolarizing neuromuscular muscle relaxant is given, such as 20 mg pancuronium bromide (Pavulon) or 20 mg vecuronium bromide (Norcuron). The muscle relaxant should preferably be given intravenously, in order to ensure optimal availability. Only for pancuronium bromide (Pavulon) are there substantial indications that the agent may also be given intramuscularly in a dosage of 40 mg.

wweek.com/___ALL_OLD_HTML/euthanasics.html

originally written May, 2005. Updated as merited.

copyright 2005-2009 Dudley Sharp – Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.

Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas

Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O’Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.

A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.

First, academics, lawmakers and others have been trying to get the database/methodology on the Boger/Unah “study” for about a decade. Why hasn’t it been released? Guess.

Secondly, the only alleged racial “disparity” (not bias) uncovered in the “study” is based upon

“. . . the “death odds multiplier” is 3.5, indicating that, on average, the odds of receiving a death sentnece are increased by a factor of 3.5 when the murder victim is white.” (page 4).

IF true, that 3.5 odds mutliplier equals about a 2%-4% differential – completely meaningless, based upon actual cases sent to death row – SOMETHING THE STUDY DID NOT EVEN MEASIURE!

Thirdly, the “study” ONLY looks at 1994-1997, or 13% of the years of NC current death penalty laws. Even IF the “study” is sound, it is, compeletley irrelevant, when looking at the full 32 years of relevant data.

Come on.

The aim of the racial justice act is not racial justice, it is, quite simply and obvioulsy, a way to dramatically increase the costs and delays in death penalty cases, with a goal of assiting in the end of the death penalty in North Carolina.

see
RACE: A Death Penalty Primer – No Bias in Death Penalty Sentencing
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/25/race-a-death-penalty-primer.aspx?ref=rss

It would be interesting to know how we Americans have gotten so misinformed about the Canadian system, single-payer systems, and health care reform.

Robert McDonald, Ph.D.
Asheville

As an educator, I would rather the student learn well than quickly. The process is a natural one. The job force for which we are preparing him will not provide a desk-side tutor to expedite his journey, but will require him to have independent learning skills that are best established early in life. Digital media is an incredible tool for that process for learners of all ages, including adults. The ability to manage one’s own process with rewinding or backtracking is a critical component to success that traditional classrooms typically don’t afford.

Please take a look at these two brief videos for an introduction into the perspective I’m presenting:

(Higher ed)
http://voices.merlot.org/video/2093140:Video:2507
(K-12)
http://voices.merlot.org/video/2093140:Video:795

The money being spent on technology in schools is minimal compared to what it should be, and that is a social issue with sometimes tragic ramifications. Technology integration in education is the lowest of any sector of our society and it is where technology is most needed and has the potential for the greatest impact. For my own children and grandchildren, Web access and technology tools have created opportunity for success in a learning environment in which the paid educators are somewhat clueless and even resistant to the tools.

I encourage this dialog; I believe that you mean well and want what’s best for students. However, I strongly disagree with the approach you recommend.

I remain convinced that today’s grade school kids will interact with computers and other high-tech tools via voice commands. Basic skills will then be far more important than knowing how to navigate Windows-based, key-pad oriented machines. As the accompanying video suggests, engineering students in four year programs now find that their first year material is passé by the third year. The “why” of learning becomes far more important than the “how to use this computer” piece.

Technology has the added advantage of enhancing the reach and scope of quality education/educators and making learning participatory in nature, which is much more beneficial to the student than the traditional paradigm of blackboards and teachers who may or may not see their own professional development as an ongoing process.

Please support technology in schools! It’s the economic stimulus that will actually have a long-term benefit to our economy and our culture.

A so-called “conservative” today is quite the opposite. They cannot claim to conserve anything with the possible exception of the conservation of backward-thinking ideals that are firmly rooted in 19th century thinking. Maybe it is time for people who truly represent the ideals of conservation to lame claim to the conservative nomme and let the impostors come up with something that is more accurately descriptive. I sugggest: “CAN’TSERVATIVE.”