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.
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 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 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.
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.
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, in contradiction of that oath.
100% pledge a commitment to their patients, but only 43% vow being accountable for their medical actions. Some commitment. Ethics?
Many doctors could care less about it or about being honest about it.
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 modern version is, most often, identified as that penned by Louis Lasagna in 1964.
This is in the context of killing innocent lives through either abortion or euthanasia.
This is the Lasanga oath, the only purpose of which is a transparent denial of the original oath.
The Lasanga oath shows physicians’ medical ethical/moral acceptance of taking innocent lives, within their medical practice.
But, horror forbid, that physicians participate in taking the lives of guilty murderers, outside of their medical practice.
The blatant hypocrisy of it is clear.
“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.
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?
“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).
“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.
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.
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. In many cases, 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.
Many 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) -- typical anti death penalty nonsense.
Any participation in executions by medical professionals should be a matter for their own personal conscience.
Hippocrates or “do no harm”, then there would have been an effort to stop medical professionals from participating in euthanasia and abortion. In fact, the opposite has occurred.
Instead, irresponsible medical professionals have turned those obvious, historical ethical standards upside down and have fabricated, out of thin air, a prohibition against the death penalty.
Why? For personal reasons, some have decided the formerly unethical medical practices of abortion and euthanasia are, now, just fine and that the ethical death penalty is, now, 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.
19% are willing to give the lethal injection; 36% are willing to pronounce the prisoner dead.
There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US since 1900 (7). In fact, the evidence is that the death penalty ends up saving additional innocent lives,innocent lives that would be lost without it (8).
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.
copyright 2005-2012 Dudley Sharp – Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.