Quake3World

Geebs wrote: And no, I've never killed any of my patients, not even by mistake.

mjrpes wrote:

hate wrote:wrong THE 'Hippocratic Oath' is an option

and not a requirement

I would guess that a large majority of doctors take it. Or else wouldn't it be easy for a prison to find a doctor to administer a lethal injection? I do admit I know shit about the subject beyond what I read in a wikipedia article on lethal injection.

Geebs wrote:The Hippocratic oath is considered to be a little old-fashioned in this day and age. The only time most doctors see it is embroidered on some objet de mauvais gout which a patient has given them as a gift.

And no, I've never killed any of my patients, not even by mistake.

hate wrote:

mjrpes wrote:

hate wrote:wrong THE 'Hippocratic Oath' is an option

and not a requirement

I would guess that a large majority of doctors take it. Or else wouldn't it be easy for a prison to find a doctor to administer a lethal injection? I do admit I know shit about the subject beyond what I read in a wikipedia article on lethal injection.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_today.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

mjrpes wrote:

Geebs wrote:The Hippocratic oath is considered to be a little old-fashioned in this day and age. The only time most doctors see it is embroidered on some objet de mauvais gout which a patient has given them as a gift.

And no, I've never killed any of my patients, not even by mistake.

So why does it seem (according to what I read) that no doctors directly perform lethal injections on prisoners. Wouldn't it be in the best interest of a doctor and society, seeing that there is less chance of an error occuring in the injection, and thus potentially less suffering in the prisoner? And then what about the 'pull the plug' issue? Why do doctors let a patient 'suffer' through starvation (granted, if they're brain dead there isn't any suffering) instead of just getting it over with quickly? I thought the reason for this was a matter of ethics, and this stemmed back from the tenets of the Hippocratic Oath.

mjrpes wrote:

hate wrote:

mjrpes wrote: I would guess that a large majority of doctors take it. Or else wouldn't it be easy for a prison to find a doctor to administer a lethal injection? I do admit I know shit about the subject beyond what I read in a wikipedia article on lethal injection.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_today.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

Thanks.

Geebs wrote:take it to the bridge

Geebs wrote:

mjrpes wrote:

Geebs wrote:The Hippocratic oath is considered to be a little old-fashioned in this day and age. The only time most doctors see it is embroidered on some objet de mauvais gout which a patient has given them as a gift.

And no, I've never killed any of my patients, not even by mistake.

So why does it seem (according to what I read) that no doctors directly perform lethal injections on prisoners. Wouldn't it be in the best interest of a doctor and society, seeing that there is less chance of an error occuring in the injection, and thus potentially less suffering in the prisoner? And then what about the 'pull the plug' issue? Why do doctors let a patient 'suffer' through starvation (granted, if they're brain dead there isn't any suffering) instead of just getting it over with quickly? I thought the reason for this was a matter of ethics, and this stemmed back from the tenets of the Hippocratic Oath.

People tend to forget that Hippocrates' real legacy to modern medicine was the hippocratic method, not the oath.

Doctors basically have a professional agreement (I think it also ties in with the UN or WHO, can't remember which) not to be involved in torture, which leads to problems in places which still have capital and corporal punishment. You can be seriously criticised and/or struck off for serious breaches of ethics, and every professional body has a code of conduct, but you'd be surprised at how much still comes down to a doctor's personal ethics... and what they think they can get away with.

werldhed wrote:

Geebs wrote:

mjrpes wrote:

So why does it seem (according to what I read) that no doctors directly perform lethal injections on prisoners. Wouldn't it be in the best interest of a doctor and society, seeing that there is less chance of an error occuring in the injection, and thus potentially less suffering in the prisoner? And then what about the 'pull the plug' issue? Why do doctors let a patient 'suffer' through starvation (granted, if they're brain dead there isn't any suffering) instead of just getting it over with quickly? I thought the reason for this was a matter of ethics, and this stemmed back from the tenets of the Hippocratic Oath.

People tend to forget that Hippocrates' real legacy to modern medicine was the hippocratic method, not the oath.

Doctors basically have a professional agreement (I think it also ties in with the UN or WHO, can't remember which) not to be involved in torture, which leads to problems in places which still have capital and corporal punishment. You can be seriously criticised and/or struck off for serious breaches of ethics, and every professional body has a code of conduct, but you'd be surprised at how much still comes down to a doctor's personal ethics... and what they think they can get away with.

I would also add that doctors are employed in the practice of healing; it is not their duty to be responsible for administering criminal punishment. That's what people trained in criminal justice are for. If your only job is to inject a death row prisoner, it should be easy to train you for that job without requiring you go to medical school. After all, injections are done all the time by people who aren't doctors.

mjrpes wrote:

werldhed wrote:

Geebs wrote: People tend to forget that Hippocrates' real legacy to modern medicine was the hippocratic method, not the oath.

Doctors basically have a professional agreement (I think it also ties in with the UN or WHO, can't remember which) not to be involved in torture, which leads to problems in places which still have capital and corporal punishment. You can be seriously criticised and/or struck off for serious breaches of ethics, and every professional body has a code of conduct, but you'd be surprised at how much still comes down to a doctor's personal ethics... and what they think they can get away with.

I would also add that doctors are employed in the practice of healing; it is not their duty to be responsible for administering criminal punishment. That's what people trained in criminal justice are for. If your only job is to inject a death row prisoner, it should be easy to train you for that job without requiring you go to medical school. After all, injections are done all the time by people who aren't doctors.

One thing you have to understand though is that for lethal injection there is a precise combination and timing of three compoinds used to administer the death. If you fuck up the balance then tragic things can happen, like the prisoner waking just as paralysis sets in, so that they have to suffer through the torture of suffication all the while not being able to move a muscle.

You can read some of that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection

On occasion, there have also been difficulties inserting the delivery needles, sometimes taking over half an hour to find a suitable vein. Some of the previous errors in Texas executions include:
• Technicians punctured the inmate repeatedly in both arms and legs for 45 minutes before a vein was located. (Stephen Peter Morin [6], March 13, 1985)
• Executioners struggled for 35 minutes to insert the catheter into an inmate's veins. (Elliot Johnson, June 24, 1987)
• 24 minutes elapsed between the time the initial injection occurred and the time the inmate was pronounced dead; two minutes into the procedure, the syringe came out of the inmate's arm and the chemicals sprayed out towards witnesses. (Raymond Landry [7], December 13, 1988)
• After an inmate had a violent physical reaction to the drugs as they were injected, the Texas Attorney General stated the inmate "seemed to have a somewhat stronger reaction," adding "The drugs might have been administered in a heavier dose or more rapidly." (Stephen McCoy [8], May 24, 1989)

Kracus wrote:Or a crowbar to the head.

mjrpes wrote:One thing you have to understand though is that for lethal injection there is a precise combination and timing of three compoinds used to administer the death. If you fuck up the balance then tragic things can happen, like the prisoner waking just as paralysis sets in, so that they have to suffer through the torture of suffication all the while not being able to move a muscle.

You can read some of that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection