medical ethics
The big news in California is the delayed execution of Michael Morales. (What kind of a state do I live in that executions are A) so frequent and B) so controversial? See Tookie Williams for another example.)
Anyway, a judge decided that a lethal injection is indeed cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore, two anesthesiologists were ordered to be on-hand in case the prisoner showed any signs of pain or regaining consciousness. The AMA and others were livid. Doctors are kind of staunch about that Hypocratic Oath thing and understandably want no part (however trivial) in the ending of someone's life.
At the last minute, literally the eleventh hour, the execution was postponed. I heard this morning a judge had decided the prison should just use a lethal dose of a painkiller, but now it looks as though the convicted felon will be on death row a bit longer than anticipated.
Reminds me of that tragic story about a man with frighteningly low IQ in Texas who greeted news of his clemency with mixed emotion. "Do I still get to eat my last meal?" he reportedly asked.
posted by Jessica @ 9:15 PM
4 Comments:
I wish executions were a bit more controversial in my state.
I am not against capital punishment but from a practical standpoint I think it has become silly the way we implement it, let alone what we implement it for. I would not be surprised to see it cost less to keep the creep in prison rather than kill him.
I also wonder if we have captital punishment for the right offenses? Maybe it should be saved for the real sub humans among us, the rapists, molesters and serial killers.
That this is even a topic speaks sad volumes about this country.
Yeharr
Im not sure any part in the ending of someones life should be considered trivial.
Pretty sure it should be considered evil and wrong.
Post a Comment
<< Home