Kudos To The NC Medical Licesning Board: Just Say No To Executions

N.C. Medical Board Favors Ban On Doctors Aiding Executions

"First, do no harm!" That is the often quoted portion of the Hippocratic Oath. It is an important part of the foundational principles--the first principles--of medicine as a discipline, academic field of study, art form and profession.

In that light, the North Carolina state licensing board has blocked physicians from overseeing and administering ("actively participating") in executions. From the view of someone that has made a concerted effort to study ethics and the social problems that raise ethical issues and present ethical dilemmas, this is a step in the right direction. Medical personnel are not supposed to administer death. They are supposed to assist in making the transition from life to death in the case of a person suffering from illness, but they are not supposed to be administrators of justice. It is not the role of the medical professional, or medical paraprofessional, to administer justice, especially in the form of an execution.

While the government will probably try to force the issue and compel the participation of a medical practitioner at executions, I am hoping that the medical profession will resist this on moral, ethical and religious freedom grounds. In the mean time, the government will have to work its way around the issue. Unfortunately, the way this work-around will manifest will not be in the form of eliminating the death penalty completely.

I maintain that it is a universal ethic that killing without immediate threat of life or limb is unethical and immoral. It is against the teachings of Christ, for those interested in the Christian view. It has been applied in too many cases where there have been errors in the prosecution of the case, and it is a convenience rather than an ethical approach to solve the problems of our society. It is inhumane. We would not allow people to incarcerate an animal in the same manner as we do our prisoners on death row (or maximum security for that matter). Proof of the ethical problem is that we often have to medicate many of those sentenced to death in order to make them sane enough and medically sound enough to execute them. The fact that we are willing to execute those among us that seem to suffer mental illness and a lack of connectivity to our society speaks volumes about the unethical quality of the death penalty.

A soldier facing an enemy on the battlefield is acting ethically if he kills the enemy, even though war itself is unethical. The soldier has an inherent right to survive on the battlefield. But, a soldier has the obligation to assess, prior to entering the battle, whether or not the war is a just war or merely an exploitation by force. Such ethical courage has been displayed by Ehren Watada and should be exercised by more members of our military. The invasion of Iraq is a violation of the Constitution. The soldiers (all military service members) took an oath to support and defend the Constitution above all things. It is therefore the right of a soldier to refuse to go to battle in an illegal war.

A person being attacked, whose life or safety is being threatened, has a right to defend himself/herself with commensurate force, including deadly force when warranted.

But there is no inherent right of a government to destroy life, despite the centuries of history of doing so. Historical precedence does not constitute a right, merely precedent. But a historical review of why prisoners have been put to death will reveal that most of the death penalties handed down have been inappropriate expressions of revenge, convenience, exploitation or political will of the majority. In short, the death penalty is so often implemented for the wrong reasons that there must be something inherently wrong about it.

So, bravo to the NC licensing board for recognizing the problem and taking action.

RALEIGH, N.C., July 21 -- The state licensing board for doctors gave initial approval Friday to a policy blocking doctors from actively participating in executions, addressing an issue that has weighed heavily on medical professionals in many states.

The North Carolina Medical Board is expected to take a final vote on the proposed policy in two or three months, after receiving comments.

Under the proposed policy, "physician participation in capital punishment is a departure from the ethics of the medical profession."

State law requires a doctor to be present at executions, but the proposal, which the board approved unanimously, would prohibit physicians from doing anything but observing.

"This board will not discipline licensees for merely being present at an execution," said Art McCulloch, a Charlotte anesthesiologist who is chairman of the board's policy committee.

The proposed policy is less strict than the stance of the American Medical Association, which equates the presence of a doctor with participation.

A doctor employed by the prison system attends executions at Central Prison in Raleigh, but a prison official would not say exactly what he does.

The AMA has long opposed physician involvement in executions, and the president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists has advised his group's members to "steer clear" of helping states put condemned criminals to death.