News-Record.com

The courts should not allow it.* Doug

Right Doug! But your editorial board supported all the present Judges who will not do it. Now what? Of course, we could go to plan B and call in the National Guard to solve the issue, but don't count on that since they are fighting for their lives in Iraq.

Forcing someone unwillingly to participate in the execution of fellow human beings must constitute at bare minimum cruel and unusual punishment.

And though I suspect there are some otherwise good and decent people involved in the execution process, you have to question the minds and hearts of individuals who willingly participate.

Those who legislate executions should require of themselves the most direct level of participation possible.

And if ever it is found that an innocent person is put to death, at least one of the individuals responsible for that execution should be executed.

Don't worry about that last suggestion though. We know that such a mistake could never be made, so there would never be anything to worry about anyway. It's, of course, an impossible hypothetical situation to begin with, knowing the perfect nature of human beings.

Doug, you are late to this party. And quite frankly, so was the Medical Board when it made its "stand".

The law requiring doctors to be present at North Carolina executions has been on the books for a long time. Only recently has "ethics" become an issue for anybody . . . including the doctors making the rules (and policing other doctors).

There is much about the system of policing doctors that needs an overhaul. I've been on these blogs for nearly two years - jumping up and down about how corrupt the system is - and I have been blown off by (1) the Board & other regulatory agencies, (2) the politicians and (3) the kings & high priests (your term, not mine) of the local blogosphere.

Another lawsuit involving the Medical Board was filed last week. An NC doctor sued the Board alleging that doctors (and patients) are, in fact, NOT represented well by the NC Medical Society or the Medical Board. Did the N&R report on that? I didn't see it.

If suing the NC Medical Board is what it takes to get some attention cast on these things, well, its okay by me. Some of its powers need to be "stripped" and/or completely overhauled. Start all over and do it right this time.

It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.

I don't understand why a doctor needs to be present in the first place. The goal is to kill the inmate, not administer medical care, right? That hardly requires any medical expertise.

just saying: I agree completely.

Dr. Johnson: I don't know when would have been not late, but I wrote an editorial published last July 25 that began: "North Carolina can avoid a death-penalty standoff over medical ethics if physicians aren't asked to participate in executions. Or, better, if it abolishes capital punishment."

I've always wondered about the physician requirement at an execution with the same rationale a "just saying."
Many medical procedures are performed in a hospital or medical office setting by professionals other than doctors. EMT's and Paramedics routinely start IV's in the field. Technicians draw blood in the hospital or Dr.'s office.
Let the DOC set a standard that does not require a physician and move on.

Jaycee (very respectfully), that's where you are wrong. Doctors should not be setting "standards" for killing people. It's not Nazi Germany.

The state is doing the executing. The state needs to figure out how to do it without involving medical personnel (if it's "unethical" for doctors to participate, it is also ethical for nurses and paramedics and EMT's). That may mean finding a method other than lethal injection.

This is really a political and legal battle over the death penalty itself. The physician was put in the middle in the first place (back when people and the Medical Board did not care) so the state could avoid the "cruel and unusual" moniker (my meaning with reagards to being many years "late to the party"). The death penalty, no matter how it is implemented, will NEVER be anything but "cruel and inhumane" to those who oppose it (either on principle over an individual case).

A very wise lawyer once told me that "you are not going to change society by going to court". In my case it was true enough because the NC court system DOES NOT CARE when people get caught lying under Oath (unless you're a politician). Suing the Medical Board (while highly entertaining to some of us who have been burned by the Board's lame policies regarding duties they do not protect or defend . . . and blown off by the Board's way-arrogant legal staff) is not going to change anything.

This is a matter for the legislature. Everything else is chasing tails and passing the buck.

I apologize, Dr.Johnson, I should have put some periods in my statement.
D.O.C. stands for Department of Corrections. My suggestion was that the Dept. of Corrections establish a standard not requiring a physician and proceed.

Apology not necessary jaycee.

Given all the hoopla in the news about lapses in patient care, I think all this hand-wringing about medical ethics on the part of politicians and journalists is hypocrytical.

The key question in ALL of these instances (be it Walter Reed, or this execution dodge, or Dr. Faulkner's lawsuit against the medical board - citing many lapses in patient care) is WHERE WERE THE DOCTORS?

You need only look at my case (in local public service) to get your answer.

Doctors are serfs these days - pawns on a chess board to be used and spat upon by suits and money-changers. You buck a bad system at your own peril. And your own medical board will be nowhere to be found to back you up.

I posit a medical professional of some sort is necessary to guarantee the execution is performed in a "humane" way. If we resort to hanging or electrocution from here on out, I predict more people will suffer prolonged and botched procedures. Some of those killed will later be found innocent.

Let those in the exective branch be the ones to execute, with their own hands. Let the governor pull the switch. Let the people who elect him or her see the governor walk into the building and out afterwards.

Or do we want anonymity to the executioner in the black veil?

And I submit that killing someone cannot be made "un-cruel and humane". The state is killing somebody. What the state has done for years is try to sanitize it to make it "clean" and "civilized" (and appease the appellate lawyers). NC put a doctor in the mix to preserve the illusion. And we are kidding ourselves.

Like many North Carolinians, I believe that that there are some instances in which capital punishment is a necessary evil. The NC legislature apparently agrees. And our "law & order" Governor (as useless and self-serving/agrandizing as I think he is) is an agent of the people.

The Department of Corrections can come up with a protocol that does not involve any medical professional except the medical examiner.

I said it several months ago and I will say it again. Execution is an ugly business - no matter how it's done. It needs to STAY ugly. It keeps us honest.

Hanging is probably the least cruel and inhumane form of execution. The prisoner is in no pain or distress until the split-second his neck snaps; and then he's instantly dead.

jaycee:

except when it isn't. Hanged people often strangle, or die of asphyxia after spinal cord injury. The Guillotine was invented as a more humane method of execution because of the horrible deaths or near deaths that could result from botched hangings.

When done improperly anything can go awry, Mr. Burns. However, when the spinal cord is traumatically severed the person feels nothing, even if death isn't instantaneous.
Using the British Hanging Table they rarely go wrong.