NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently my home state carried out the execution of a severely overweight man, an execution that took many hours to carry out as the medics tasked with carrying out the execution failed to find a vein to insert the IV needle into. As a result, the Ohio ACLU has begun a movement to force the state to reveal the identities and professional credentials of the volunteer medics and guards who oversee these executions.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/05/anonymous.executioners.ap/index.html

Frankly, I believe that this is wrong. Long American tradition has been to keep the executioner anonymous when administering well organized executions on the behalf of the state. Firing lines where all but one gun was loaded with blanks, false levers at the gallows, blank switches for the electric chair have all served the purpose of hiding the true executioners identity in an era when the procedure was more public.

Further exposing these individuals to such personal public scrutiny, and potential intrusion on the parts of certain more politically militant elements into their personal and family lives, as well as the increased potential for retribution from the family and friends of the executed. Don't get me wrong. I fully support massive levels of scrutiny of the state's method of carrying out capital punishment. We should debate it openly and regularly, and preferably ban it. But to reveal these identities is, in my opinion, entirely wrong and crippling to the system.

While I fully disagree with the state having the power to use death for nearly all crimes, but this measure is inappropriate. I'd much rather we place a qualified moratorium on the death penalty, and have this portion of the debate nullified by that.

Incoherent, aren't I :)

I find death penalty stupid and unethical; but, at least, if some state really wants to kill a man, at least, they could use some quicker method, like a shotgun discharge into the head. Ugly-looking kill but very, very quick.

Since my last entry on such debates, I've had a change in mind. I no longer think the death penalty is appropriate as a measure of retribution. It's costlier and more uncertain than incarceration, even if in some ways less brutal.

Executions wouldn't be like that if they just used nitrogen gas instead of potassium chloride and other chemicals.

As an advocate of retroactive abortion, I believe the executionee's Mom should have to do it.

okay, I actually read the OP (anyone else?)

I think you are right. I think there should be stringent guidelines for who gets to be the executioner, but I don't think it needs to be a matter of public record. I mean if there is a list of executioners, what's to stop whack jobs from trying to go look them up and kill them?

[/kneejerk]


edit: and it always takes a few tries to get an IV in me, due to my shallow veins that roll....(or that's what they tell me is the cause)

once it took 17 tries before they gave up and put in a femoral line (not fun) another time they only tried 9 times before they had to do a central line (cuz I was gonna die)

my average is 4-6 tries, unless they really freaking listen to me when I come in and get an anesthesiologist to do it (they almost always get it done in less than 3 tries)

Or, we could be, like, you know, civilized and not kill people. You know, if it would be okay with you guys...

I don't care for capital punishment; not surprisingly, I am unconcerned with the well-being of those who choose to administer it.

edit: and it always takes a few tries to get an IV in me, due to my shallow veins that roll....(or that's what they tell me is the cause)



Especially if there is a lot of adrenaline flowing and constricting your veins........such as in a scary execution like situation

Death penalty ftw.

[/dissent]

I don't understand why we insist that lethal injection is a humane way. It's probably no more (It might be less) humane then any other common (MODERN) execution method. Firing squad's probably more humane. I think you can choose to be hung in Georgia...Correct me if I'm wrong...

Especially if their is a lot of adrenaline flowing and constricting your veins........such as in a scary execution like situation

after the time when I got stuck 17 times and then they cut into my thigh and put a needle in my femoral artery? I am a bit anxious when they say they have to start an IV. I am also almost always very dehydrated when I get into the "we need to start an IV" situation and I hear that makes things more difficult too.

I've never understood why American states in an effort to choose more and more humane methods of execution end up picking methods that cause more pain and distress than the last. The most cack handed suicidee can sit in their car with a hosepipe from the exhaust, why can't the states organise something like that?

I don't understand why we insist that lethal injection is a humane way. It's probably no more (It might be less) humane then any other common (MODERN) execution method. Firing squad's probably more humane. I think you can choose to be hung in Georgia...Correct me if I'm wrong...
*envisions free male enhancement* . . . Correct me if I'm wrong . . .;)

after the time when I got stuck 17 times and then they cut into my thigh and put a needle in my femoral artery? I am a bit anxious when they say they have to start an IV. I am also almost always very dehydrated when I get into the "we need to start an IV" situation and I hear that makes things more difficult too.

Yep if you're dehydrated your veins constrict to maintain your blood pressure

after the time when I got stuck 17 times and then they cut into my thigh and put a needle in my femoral artery? I am a bit anxious when they say they have to start an IV. I am also almost always very dehydrated when I get into the "we need to start an IV" situation and I hear that makes things more difficult too.

That does sound scary. Of course, the primary difference is, we want you to live. If we're shooting someone up to kill them, I mean, why not just go for the jugular?

edit: and it always takes a few tries to get an IV in me, due to my shallow veins that roll....(or that's what they tell me is the cause)

once it took 17 tries before they gave up and put in a femoral line (not fun) another time they only tried 9 times before they had to do a central line (cuz I was gonna die)

my average is 4-6 tries, unless they really freaking listen to me when I come in and get an anesthesiologist to do it (they almost always get it done in less than 3 tries)

My veins have a tendency to roll as well, although I don't have as many problems as you. I've actually not had an IV put in since I was an infant, so I don't have that experience. But I do give blood regularly and it isn't unusual for them to either have to move the needle around to find the vein or to try again (usually on the other arm). Even my advisor, who is an anesthesiologist, had trouble with my veins when trying to draw a little bit of blood. She ended up going for the visible veins on my hand, rather than on my arm.

I think that you shouldn't kill, even if there was a murder. Like J.R.R. Tolkien said: Many that live deserve death and some that are dead deserve life. Can you give it to them?
I think that there is always a slight chance to punish the wrong person, and then you cannot bring him back to life. For me, it is not worth risking a life for any reason.

I think that you shouldn't kill, even if there was a murder. Like J.R.R. Tolkien said: Many that live deserve death and some that are dead deserve life. Can you give it to them?
I think that there is always a slight chance to punish the wrong person, and then you cannot bring him back to life. For me, it is not worth risking a life for any reason.

Though the alternative is basically just a slower version of the death penalty. Slower, more painful, and just as irreversable.

That does sound scary. Of course, the primary difference is, we want you to live. If we're shooting someone up to kill them, I mean, why not just go for the jugular?

it's difficult to get a good flow in the jugular vein, when my kid was in the hospital they had to do that because they couldn't get an IV started anywhere else and her central line got infected......anyway, we had to severely restrict her movement because any time she moved her head at all the line would occlude. (although strapping down a prisoner wouldn't be too hard)

what I don't get is why they don't go for the arteries anyway in a death row inmate, you cut, stick the catheter in (the IV) and it's done......it's painful sure, but it's quick.

it's difficult to get a good flow in the jugular vein, when my kid was in the hospital they had to do that because they couldn't get an IV started anywhere else and her central line got infected......anyway, we had to severely restrict her movement because any time she moved her head at all the line would occlude. (although strapping down a prisoner wouldn't be too hard)

what I don't get is why they don't go for the arteries anyway in a death row inmate, you cut, stick the catheter in (the IV) and it's done......it's painful sure, but it's quick.

Or you could anesthetize them first and it won't even be painful at all. Problem solved.

Or you could anesthetize them first and it won't even be painful at all. Problem solved.

not a good way to do that to adults without first starting an IV

I don't care for capital punishment; not surprisingly, I am unconcerned with the well-being of those who choose to administer it.

Hear, hear! Protect agents of government sanctioned culling? Preposterous.

not a good way to do that to adults without first starting an IV

*shrugs* They do it at the dentist's all the time. They don't even have to be completely under, just enough so that they won't move or do anything or feel any pain.

Hear, hear! Protect agents of government sanctioned culling? Preposterous.

Seems more to the point than discussing the finer points of one's own difficulties with IV procedures, yes?

what I don't get is why they don't go for the arteries anyway in a death row inmate, you cut, stick the catheter in (the IV) and it's done......it's painful sure, but it's quick.

You need training for that as arteries can be far, far trickier than veins and you can cause serious damage if you don't know what you're doing. The thing is, though, IIRC the AMA fortunately, wisely and ethically bans its members from participating in the administration of the death penalty, as do many, many international ethical standards.

"Primum non nocere" and the death penalty are incompatible.

edit: and it always takes a few tries to get an IV in me, due to my shallow veins that roll....(or that's what they tell me is the cause)

once it took 17 tries before they gave up and put in a femoral line (not fun) another time they only tried 9 times before they had to do a central line (cuz I was gonna die)

my average is 4-6 tries, unless they really freaking listen to me when I come in and get an anesthesiologist to do it (they almost always get it done in less than 3 tries)

Much the same for me, my veins are extremely shallow, while I've only ever needed an IV once, I regularly give blood. One time when giving blood they went in in with the needle on each arm nine times before giving up. It's rough.

Recently my home state carried out the execution of a severely overweight man, an execution that took many hours to carry out as the medics tasked with carrying out the execution failed to find a vein to insert the IV needle into. As a result, the Ohio ACLU has begun a movement to force the state to reveal the identities and professional credentials of the volunteer medics and guards who oversee these executions.

"Professional credentials"? Bullshit.

It's not their fault that the man's veins are hidden under layers of fat.

You need training for that as arteries can be far, far trickier than veins and you can cause serious damage if you don't know what you're doing. The thing is, though, IIRC the AMA fortunately, wisely and ethically bans its members from participating in the administration of the death penalty, as do many, many international ethical standards.

"Primum non nocere" and the death penalty are incompatible.

very true.

Seems more to the point than discussing the finer points of one's own difficulties with IV procedures, yes?

Come now, if there's one thing people love to talk about, it's their own medical anecdotes. They can go on, and on, and on, and on, and on... sorry, I get a bit too much exposure of it when people ask what I do. Oh, and don't forget the stupid things like "It hurts when I do this" and my inevitable "Then do it some more, it's bound to help!" answer before I make my escape...

See, we all love sharing anecdotes.

not a good way to do that to adults without first starting an IV

You could use those captive bolt guns they use in abbatoirs. It's not like you'll need them to wake up afterwards.

Come now, if there's one thing people love to talk about, it's their own medical anecdotes. They can go on, and on, and on, and on, and on... sorry, I get a bit too much exposure of it when people ask what I do. Oh, and don't forget the stupid things like "It hurts when I do this" and my inevitable "Then do it some more, it's bound to help!" answer before I make my escape...

See, we all love sharing anecdotes.

I have a friend who is a doctor, I feel so sorry for him.......people ask him the grossest questions.......strangers even. He has started telling people that he works in telemarketing. ;)

I don't understand why we insist that lethal injection is a humane way. It's probably no more (It might be less) humane then any other common (MODERN) execution method. Firing squad's probably more humane. I think you can choose to be hung in Georgia...Correct me if I'm wrong...

Actually, no.

Firing squad has a chance to leave the person severely wounded, but still alive, requiring to be shot again.

Lethal Injection is very humane. First you are knocked out. Then you are injected with chemicals that kill you quickly and painlessly. You're not even awake.

I don't care for capital punishment; not surprisingly, I am unconcerned with the well-being of those who choose to administer it.
Since you don't think that any crime deserves death you want them to die? Wow... What a hyprocrite.

(If the executioners are guilty of murder, by your beliefs they shouldn't be executed either, yet you said it's okay if they get hurt or die...)


. I think you can choose to be hung in Georgia...Correct me if I'm wrong... I don't think so... But I believe you can still choose to be fried.

I have a friend who is a doctor, I feel so sorry for him.......people ask him the grossest questions.......strangers even. He has started telling people that he works in telemarketing. ;)

I avoid the question as much as I can, but sometimes I do envy the females in the field that can just go "oh, I work at a hospital" and every man out there assumes they're nurses. Haha, they used to get so pissed at that assumption, but then they realised what people started acting like when they said they were doctors... now, they don't mind that much.

Hear, hear! Protect agents of government sanctioned culling? Preposterous.

Opening them and their families to retribution from third party actors and vigilantism is unjust.

I fully oppose the death penalty, but I also oppose the ACLU's viewpoint on this matter.

Opening them and their families to retribution from third party actors and vigilantism is unjust.

Killing people for a living is far, far worse, so go cry me a river somewhere. They deserve all the crap they can get.

Killing people for a living is far, far worse, so go cry me a river somewhere. They deserve all the crap they can get.

They most certainly do not, nor do their families.

If they must suffer retribution, have it carried out within the legal system.

They most certainly do not, nor do their families.

They kill people for a living. They take living people, and end their lives. You should be able to see why I have nothing but disdain, and why I don't think the law should protect them at all. In fact, the law in any reasonable country would see them incarcerated.

If they must suffer retribution, have it carried out within the legal system.

They don't need to suffer retribution, they need to fear it so that they stop doing what they do. As proponents of the death penalty, they should love the logic.

Since you don't think that any crime deserves death you want them to die? Wow... What a hyprocrite.

You're reading too much into my statement. Wow... what an absolutist.

Lethal Injection is very humane. First you are knocked out. Then you are injected with chemicals that kill you quickly and painlessly. You're not even awake.

Well yeah. Except when that doesn't work and you're left to die in agony over a period of time while paralysed and unable to utter a cry of pain. Yeah. Humane.

Recently my home state carried out the execution of a severely overweight man, an execution that took many hours to carry out as the medics tasked with carrying out the execution failed to find a vein to insert the IV needle into.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/05/anonymous.executioners.ap/index.html

Frankly, I believe that this is wrong. Long American tradition has been to keep the executioner anonymous when administering well organized executions on the behalf of the state.



This is the issue. That is not a well organised execution.

I am very much against execution. However if the State kills then there is a moral obligation to ensure that executions are performed quickly and with the least possible amount of pain.



Or, we could be, like, you know, civilized and not kill people. You know, if it would be okay with you guys...

I don't care for capital punishment; not surprisingly, I am unconcerned with the well-being of those who choose to administer it.

We should bring back the stocks and put violent criminals in the stocks then charge the public money. Parade the criminals out like the freaks they are and let the public throw tomatoes at them.

Optionally, you could also chain them up and let people shoot them criminals with nerf balls.

We should bring back the stocks and put violent criminals in the stocks then charge the public money. Parade the criminals out like the freaks they are and let the public throw tomatoes at them.

Optionally, you could also chain them up and let people shoot them criminals with nerf balls.

This man has just solved the national debt issue.

This man has just solved the national debt issue.

It would also serve as an excellent deterrent. I mean who wants to be hit with rancid tomatoes or nerf balls? Doesn't sound like fun and best of all... the criminal gets subject to public humiliation.

It would also serve as an excellent deterrent. I mean who wants to be hit with rancid tomatoes or nerf balls? Doesn't sound like fun and best of all... the criminal gets subject to public humiliation.

Eh, the nerf thing, not so much. Those are just fun.

Ping pong balls filled with concrete - yes.

They kill people for a living.

As far as I know, none of these doctors are career executioners. For the most part, they do exactly what other doctors do for a living.

They don't need to suffer retribution, they need to fear it so that they stop doing what they do. As proponents of the death penalty, they should love the logic.

Maybe they aren't proponents of the death penalty. Maybe they just feel that, if it is going to be done, it should be done as humanely as possible. Allowing someone other than a trained medical professional to do it would likely be harder on the person being executed. Not having trained medical professionals to observe the process would as well.

As far as I know, none of these doctors are career executioners. For the most part, they do exactly what other doctors do for a living.

Except other doctors don't kill people. In fact you could say the take an oath to do just the opposite....

As far as I know, none of these doctors are career executioners. For the most part, they do exactly what other doctors do for a living.

None of these people are doctors. Also, whoever these people are, I don't give a fuck what else they do in between killing people.

Maybe they aren't proponents of the death penalty. Maybe they just feel that, if it is going to be done, it should be done as humanely as possible. Allowing someone other than a trained medical professional to do it would likely be harder on the person being executed. Not having trained medical professionals to observe the process would as well.

"I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anyone when asked to do so nor will I suggest such a course."

Any "medical professional", i.e. medical doctor, involved in an execution will have their licence revoked, as such participation is a gross violation of professional ethics - you can check that with the AMA and probably your state medical association. Not to mention that having trained medical professionals involved would sully the entire profession, and also lend legitimacy to what is ultimately an act of pure barbarism that goes against every single and core basic value of the medical profession.

Eh, the nerf thing, not so much. Those are just fun.

Ping pong balls filled with concrete - yes.

You don't want to kill them. You want to keep them alive so they can make money by serving as a target for the disgruntled public! :D

This is the issue. That is not a well organised execution.

I am very much against execution. However if the State kills then there is a moral obligation to ensure that executions are performed quickly and with the least possible amount of pain.

Hold on...why is my post quoted with no response?

I don't see what would be achieved by letting the public know who performs executions. Unless you want a lot of dead executioners.

I don't see what would be achieved by letting the public know who performs executions.

It would make the choice to perform an execution even more difficult, as it would probably make the sickos willing to take the job less willing if they knew they'd have to be open about it, and would very much aid in the final abolishment of this travesty of justice and decency.

If you can't find anyone to do it, you won't be able to do it, and that's the way it should be everywhere.

I don't see what would be achieved by letting the public know who performs executions. Unless you want a lot of dead executioners.

What I'd want is for no-one to take the job. Period. If they're too squeamish to have the general public know who they are, then tough-o for the state-sanctioned serial killer crowd.

Except other doctors don't kill people. In fact you could say the take an oath to do just the opposite....

There are circumstances under which many doctors have killed people - or, rather, helped them to die painlessly.


None of these people are doctors.

Yes, actually, they are.

Also, whoever these people are, I don't give a fuck what else they do in between killing people.

That's fine. But as a general rule, when you say someone "does something for a living," that is their main source of income. That is not the case here.


Any "medical professional", i.e. medical doctor, involved in an execution will have their licence revoked, as such participation is a gross violation of professional ethics - you can check that with the AMA and probably your state medical association. Not to mention that having trained medical professionals involved would sully the entire profession, and also lend legitimacy to what is ultimately an act of pure barbarism that goes against every single and core basic value of the medical profession.

I once spoke to a woman who was a veterinarian at a research university. She said people often asked her how, in her profession, she could participate in animal research. How could a person who loved animals and had entered a career in which her purpose was to take care of animals take part in that which harms and kills them? Her answer was simple - this research has to be carried out - it is going to be carried out, and she is there to make sure it is done in the most humane way possible and to care for the animals when they are sick.

Your opinion of capital punishment notwithstanding, there are reasons that someone who is not in favor of or who does not like such punishment might still choose to participate in it - especially if they know it is going to be carried out with or without their participation.

What I'd want is for no-one to take the job. Period. If they're too squeamish to have the general public know who they are, then tough-o for the state-sanctioned serial killer crowd.

It strikes me as somewhat hypocritical to put people's lives at risk in order to oppose the death sentence.

It strikes me as somewhat hypocritical to put people's lives at risk in order to oppose the death sentence.

Then those people should seriously consider a more positive hobby, such as stamp-collecting, or historical re-enactments. They're the ones putting themselves in harm's way. No-one's forcing them to murder people.

Yes, actually, they are.

Oh? You happen to know that licensed doctors perform executions in the USA? Could you please tell me their names, so that I may contact the AMA and the WMA, so they may start proceedings to revoke their licences?

That's fine. But as a general rule, when you say someone "does something for a living," that is their main source of income. That is not the case here.

They kill people. That's enough. Or do you somehow think your irrelevant semantics change that?

I once spoke to a woman who was a veterinarian at a research university. She said people often asked her how, in her profession, she could participate in animal research. How could a person who loved animals and had entered a career in which her purpose was to take care of animals take part in that which harms and kills them? Her answer was simple - this research has to be carried out - it is going to be carried out, and she is there to make sure it is done in the most humane way possible and to care for the animals when they are sick.

Irrelevant nonsense. Or, would you like doctors to start experimenting on humans as Mengele did? Would you laud them for it? Respect them?

Your opinion of capital punishment notwithstanding, there are reasons that someone who is not in favor of or who does not like such punishment might still choose to participate in it - especially if they know it is going to be carried out with or without their participation.

And they should face the consequences of being a killer. They should have thought of their honour before they decided to execute someone.

Ah, hypocrisy is fun!

"I don't think the state should kill people. I will oppose that by saying that the lives of the people who carry out executions for the state should be put in danger! I'm such a big proponent of human life!"

It makes just as much sense as the, "I'm pro-life! That's why I think we should kill doctors who provide abortions!"

Ah, hypocrisy is fun!

"I don't think the state should kill people. I will oppose that by saying that the lives of the people who carry out executions for the state should be put in danger! I'm such a big proponent of human life!"

It makes just as much sense as the, "I'm pro-life! That's why I think we should kill doctors who provide abortions!"

No, it makes far more sense then you're claiming. And no, I don't feel at all hypocritical for what I've said in this thread. If your executioners are feeling nervous, it's due in no small part to the pervasiveness of your American gun-culture. And I now have even less pity, sympathy or empathy for these murderers than when I first weighed in.

Oh? You happen to know that licensed doctors perform executions in the USA? Could you please tell me their names, so that I may contact the AMA and the WMA, so they may start proceedings to revoke their licences?

You didn't read the article in the OP, did you? Yes, licensed doctors perform executions in the USA. No, I can't tell you their names, as such information is confidential - although there is one doctor (who no longer performs executions) listed in the article.

They kill people. That's enough. Or do you somehow think your irrelevant semantics change that?

That isn't enough to claim that they "kill people for a living." Yes, they kill people - people who have been convicted of capital crimes and are, as far as we know, a huge danger to society. It isn't as if we're talking about going out and randomly killing people.

Note: I am personally opposed to the death penalty. I don't understand how someone could participate in it - especially knowing that the person on the table may very well be innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted. But I'm not going to advocate putting their lives in danger.

Irrelevant nonsense.

Not at all. It is simply another example of a person whose professional ethics would seem to preclude a given action, but do not, because they see the alternative as worse.

Or, would you like doctors to start experimenting on humans as Mengele did? Would you laud them for it? Respect them?

Doctors do experiment on humans, albeit not as Mengele did.

And they should face the consequences of being a killer. They should have thought of their honour before they decided to execute someone.

So the penalty, in your mind, for killing someone is to have your own life (and those of your family) placed in danger. Death for killing. Sounds a lot like the death penalty. How interesting.

No, it makes far more sense then you're claiming. And no, I don't feel at all hypocritical for what I've said in this thread. If your executioners are feeling nervous, it's due in no small part to the pervasiveness of your American gun-culture. And I now have even less pity, sympathy or empathy for these murderers than when I first weighed in.

If you have little sympathy or empathy for those who carry out the death penalty, why do you have it for those who are being punished - those convicted of, well, killing others?

Here's what you're basically saying: "People who have killed others (generally premeditated, awful crimes) deserve life. They should not be killed. Anyone who would carry out the sentence they have received for their crimes should be in fear for their lives and I don't care at all if someone kills them."

You didn't read the article in the OP, did you? Yes, licensed doctors perform executions in the USA. No, I can't tell you their names, as such information is confidential - although there is one doctor (who no longer performs executions) listed in the article.

How do you know they are licensed? How do you know they are doctors? Their idendities are "protected" because they know, and the article says so, that the AMA would feast on their livers and they would never practice medicine anywhere again, if they do since apparently no one may know that.

That isn't enough to claim that they "kill people for a living." Yes, they kill people - people who have been convicted of capital crimes and are, as far as we know, a huge danger to society. It isn't as if we're talking about going out and randomly killing people.

They kill people. Your paragraph changes nothing. Your paragraph certainly does not change Ethical Codes (http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=resultLink&doc=policyfiles/HnE/E-2.06.HTM&s_t=execution&catg=AMA/HnE&catg=AMA/BnGnC&catg=AMA/DIR&&nth=1&&st_p=0&nth=6&). Your paragraph makes me in no way willing to see their identities protected - in fact, it makes me want them to be exposed even more.

Note: I am personally opposed to the death penalty. I don't understand how someone could participate in it - especially knowing that the person on the table may very well be innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted. But I'm not going to advocate putting their lives in danger.

And I am not going to advocate shielding these scum-sucking lowlifes from the professional consequences of their demented and unethical decisions. It puts their lives at risk to kill other people? Then, they should stop.

Not at all. It is simply another example of a person whose professional ethics would seem to preclude a given action, but do not, because they see the alternative as worse.

And I don't give a fuck about their feeble excuses.

Doctors do experiment on humans, albeit not as Mengele did.

Doctors do experiments on volunteers, and the experiments have to pass rigorous ethical trials before being allowed. Your animal testing nonsense still shines with its irrelevance.

So the penalty, in your mind, for killing someone is to have your own life (and those of your family) placed in danger. Death for killing. Sounds a lot like the death penalty. How interesting.

The consequence of choosing to participate in an execution should be that everyone knows that you are an executioner - and you should face censure in your profession should it be medical. If you can't live with that, then tough luck. For you see, executions cannot happen without people willing to perform them, and that performance should not be facilitated in any manner. Your life is in danger? Call the police and live under protection. Don't bitch to me that you chose to put it in danger yourself.

If you have little sympathy or empathy for those who carry out the death penalty, why do you have it for those who are being punished - those convicted of, well, killing others?

Because a conviction isn't a guarantee. Too many people have been wrongfully convicted of their crimes (in Canada there's been David Milgaard, Donald Marshall, Stephen Truscott and Guy Paul Morin, to name but a few). Luckily for these gentlemen, they weren't wrongfully executed as well.

Here's what you're basically saying: "People who have killed others (generally premeditated, awful crimes) deserve life. They should not be killed. Anyone who would carry out the sentence they have received for their crimes should be in fear for their lives and I don't care at all if someone kills them."

Spot on. If you willingly play into a judicial system that murders people, I couldn't give a damn about you or your safety.

Don't like that, Dempublicents? Well, tough. I wasn't put on this planet to coddle your sensibilities.

Spot on. If you willingly play into a judicial system that murders people, I couldn't give a damn about you or your safety.

Don't like that, Dempublicents? Well, tough. I wasn't put on this planet to coddle your sensibilities.

You have a problem with people trying to make executions(executions that would happen even if all the people who currently perform them refused to do so ever again) quick and painless?

You have a problem with people trying to make executions(executions that would happen even if all the people who currently perform them refused to do so ever again) quick and painless?

So, you'd be all fine and dandy for a doctor to administer a prospective rape victim with a drug that makes her docile, so long as the rape, such as for instance happen in certain countries where government forces have rape rooms, was going to happen anyway? You'd be fine and dandy to coddle the conscience of rapists and killers? Ease their ability to commit crimes against humanity?

The death penalty is a barbarous act. If you cannot stomach that it is barbarous, do not perform it. Do not cry for someone else to make the performance easier on your sensibilities, or to hide the truth of its hideousnesses from you.

Ah the joys of utterly ignoring the Hippocratic Oath. How on earth do those people get to sleep at night?

Because a conviction isn't a guarantee. Too many people have been wrongfully convicted of their crimes (in Canada there's been David Milgaard, Donald Marshall, Stephen Truscott and Guy Paul Morin, to name but a few). Luckily for these gentlemen, they weren't wrongfully executed as well.



Which probably has a lot to do with why both Demipublicents and I both oppose capital punishment.

Ah the joys of utterly ignoring the Hippocratic Oath. How on earth do those people get to sleep at night?

Apparently by having other people be all too willing to tuck them in and fluff their pillows for them, all in the name of false decency.

What really irks me about this is that apparently people in the USA would like to pretend that their laws ban "cruel and unusual" punishments. So, willing to live under this illusion, they try to make executions "less cruel" and more palatable. In the end, it would seem that some would like to defend the actions of the people that allow these "less cruel" executions to occur, because "they're only trying to ease the suffering of the people to be killed". Ignoring of course that according to this claim that "cruel and unusual" punishments are supposed to be illegal, this "easement" of suffering is what allows the suffering to go on in the first place.

A sort of "The death penalty is cruel and causes suffering, and the law bans cruel punishments, so let's try to make it seem like it is less cruel so that it may go on legally, and then praise those that allow us to pretend" idiocy.

So, you'd be all fine and dandy for a doctor to administer a prospective rape victim with a drug that makes her docile, so long as the rape, such as for instance happen in certain countries where government forces have rape rooms, was going to happen anyway? You'd be fine and dandy to coddle the conscience of rapists and killers? Ease their ability to commit crimes against humanity?
No, I'd be fine and dandy to remove the pain of the victim. I dare say only masochists would choose to be painfully raped over being painlessly raped.

The death penalty is a barbarous act. If you cannot stomach that it is barbarous, do not perform it. Do not cry for someone else to make the performance easier on your sensibilities, or to hide the truth of its hideousnesses from you.
Yes, it is. But until executions are stopped I'd rather they be performed as painlessly as possible.
Ah the joys of utterly ignoring the Hippocratic Oath. How on earth do those people get to sleep at night?

Have you read the Hippocratic Oath recently? It forbids abortion and performing surgery to remove kidney stones and it requires doctors to teach "the art" to children of the person who taught it to them.

my average is 4-6 tries, unless they really freaking listen to me when I come in and get an anesthesiologist to do it (they almost always get it done in less than 3 tries)

The worst is when they have the inexperienced nurse draw blood and after a few (painful :(/:mad:)tries they get the nurse who actually knows what shes doing.

Yes, it is. But until executions are stopped I'd rather they be performed as painlessly as possible.

Aha, making the rapes and killings "less cruel" so that they may go on, and then pretending that being the factor that allows them to occur, smoothly or at all, is a "humane" act?

Your life is in danger? Call the police and live under protection. Don't bitch to me that you chose to put it in danger yourself.

Do convicted murderers not choose to put their own lives in danger?

Because a conviction isn't a guarantee. Too many people have been wrongfully convicted of their crimes (in Canada there's been David Milgaard, Donald Marshall, Stephen Truscott and Guy Paul Morin, to name but a few). Luckily for these gentlemen, they weren't wrongfully executed as well.

Ok, that makes more sense then. Your opposition to the death penalty is not simply that killing is involved, but that an innocent person may be caught up in it.

Spot on. If you willingly play into a judicial system that murders people, I couldn't give a damn about you or your safety.

Wait, I thought you said it was about possible innocents?

Don't like that, Dempublicents? Well, tough. I wasn't put on this planet to coddle your sensibilities.

It's not a matter of sensibilities. You have every right to have a hypocritical viewpoint. I'm just going to find it rather funny if you do and continue even when it is pointed out. I find it funny that those opposed to execution will essentially call for the blood of those who do it. Like I said before, it makes as much sense as those who call for the blood of doctors who perform abortions.

For a moment there, I thought that perhaps you didn't. But then you answered my last comment with "Spot on," which would suggest otherwise that you do think those who murder innocent people in cold blood should be treated better than those who kill only those convicted of such crimes. .

The worst is when they have the inexperienced nurse draw blood and after a few (painful :(/:mad:)tries they get the nurse who actually knows what shes doing.

How else do you propose that the inexperienced nurse get experience?

Suck it up.

Do convicted murderers not choose to put their own lives in danger?

They should have police protection, as well, if there is a threat against them. They shouldn't, either, get to demand anonymity and complete expulsions of their criminal record so that they come across squeakier than they are.

They should have police protection, as well, if there is a threat against them. They shouldn't, either, get to demand anonymity and complete expulsions of their criminal record so that they come across squeakier than they are.

It's far cheaper to the taxpayer just to not let the information out...much as it's far cheaper to the taxpayer to just not execute prisoners.

As such, I say we opt for a cessation of the death penalty, and not letting the execution staff's names out.

Aha, making the rapes and killings "less cruel" so that they may go on, and then pretending that being the factor that allows them to occur, smoothly or at all, is a "humane" act?

No, making the rapes and killings less cruel because it's better than them being more cruel.

No, making the rapes and killings less cruel because it's better than them being more cruel.

Thus facilitating, and in the case of the USA and the death penalty, being that factor allowing them to continue. Yeah, real humane...

It's far cheaper to the taxpayer just to not let the information out...much as it's far cheaper to the taxpayer to just not execute prisoners.

I don't give a fuck about the cost to the taxpayer.

As such, I say we opt for a cessation of the death penalty, and not letting the execution staff's names out.

I say that the people doing the killing not get to hide it.

Thus facilitating, and in the case of the USA and the death penalty, allowing them to continue. Yeah, real humane...

So you'd prefer the executions be made more barbaric than they already are in the hopes that it might lead to the abolishment of the death penalty? And you don't see the hypocrisy there?

So you'd prefer the executions be made more barbaric than they already are in the hopes that it might lead to the abolishment of the death penalty?

The death penalty already is barbaric. "More or less" is for idiots to be fooled by.

And you don't see the hypocrisy there?

And you don't see the stupidity in supporting an act that allows the death penalty to cause more of the suffering and barbarism you claim to want to prevent with the act?

Do convicted murderers not choose to put their own lives in danger?



Ok, that makes more sense then. Your opposition to the death penalty is not simply that killing is involved, but that an innocent person may be caught up in it.



Wait, I thought you said it was about possible innocents?



It's not a matter of sensibilities. You have every right to have a hypocritical viewpoint. I'm just going to find it rather funny if you do and continue even when it is pointed out. I find it funny that those opposed to execution will essentially call for the blood of those who do it. Like I said before, it makes as much sense as those who call for the blood of doctors who perform abortions.

For a moment there, I thought that perhaps you didn't. But then you answered my last comment with "Spot on," which would suggest otherwise that you do think those who murder innocent people in cold blood should be treated better than those who kill only those convicted of such crimes. .

No, I am not being a hypocrite. There's an important distinction that you're not making here. Someone convicted of murder could also be someone wrongfully convicted of murder. A state executioner is a murderer, and cannot be considered anything other than a murderer, as they actually do kill human beings, which is a whole world of difference from someone who might have committed a murder.

Frankly, I'd want it known far and wide whether my neighbourhood was playing host to an anonymous serial killer in the employ of the government. I think the sort of people who can carry out this type of act are a potential threat to society, and I would personally make a point of ostracizing them and I'd actively encourage others to do just the same.

The death penalty already is barbaric. "More or less" is for idiots to be fooled by.
You might want to clean your window, cos the world outside it isn't black and white.



And you don't see the stupidity in supporting an act that allows the death penalty to cause more of the suffering and barbarism you claim to want to prevent with the act?

No, I don't see anything stupid about preferring that people are painlessly executed.

You might want to clean your window, cos the world outside it isn't black and white.

And you might want to get a reality check, because the dead people will be dead no matter how you kill them, and in fact, more of them will be dead by you making it easier to kill them. But they suffered a tiny bit less, or so you would like to believe, so that makes it OK that you have increased the numbers that will suffer?

No, I don't see anything stupid about preferring that people are painlessly executed.

And more and more and more and more to be "painlessly" (ah, how easily you seem to fool yourself) executed.

no, they are a killer, they are not a murder, murder is unlawful killing

It is unlawful to execute people where I live, so I do consider executioners murderers. It is unlawful where Dobbsworld lives, too.

A state executioner is a murderer, and cannot be considered anything other than a murderer, as they actually do kill human beings, which is a whole world of difference from someone who might have committed a murder.

no, they are a killer, they are not a murder, murder is unlawful killing

isn't that what you guys say when a pro-life person says something about abortion being murder?

hmm?

It is unlawful to execute people where I live, so I do consider executioners murderers. It is unlawful where Dobbsworld lives, too.

and in some parts of the world abortion is illegal, so is it intellectually honest to call abortion murder?

and in some parts of the world abortion is illegal, so is it intellectually honest to call abortion murder?

No, because there is no killing taking place from the get go, while in the case of executioners there is. Thus the entire premise for your comparison is flawed.

It is unlawful to execute people where I live, so I do consider executioners murderers. It is unlawful where Dobbsworld lives, too.

And I concur.

Smunkeeville: I am not persuaded by your attempts to tie this in with abortion-on-demand-as-a-political-issue. I have previously stated, on any number of occasions, that I consider abortion a health issue that does not directly pertain to me.

Being an executioner, how about that for a job.

'What's your job?'

'I am a murderer'.

And I concur.

Smunkeeville: I am not persuaded by your attempts to tie this in with abortion-on-demand-as-a-political-issue. I have previously stated, on any number of occasions, that I consider abortion a health issue that does not directly pertain to me.

I am not trying to tie in to any other debate, I am pointing out that if someone else was misusing the word "murderer" to gain ground in a debate both of you would accuse them of appeal to emotion, however when it suits you, over emotive language is fine.

Actually, no.

Firing squad has a chance to leave the person severely wounded, but still alive, requiring to be shot again.

Lethal Injection is very humane. First you are knocked out. Then you are injected with chemicals that kill you quickly and painlessly. You're not even awake.

There is a great deal of disagreement on the "quickly and painlessly" part of this equation.

How else do you propose that the inexperienced nurse get experience?

Suck it up.

Heh. I remember after being stuck an even dozen times by a nurse with little experience, I announced calmly, "Ok, I am going to lie down now."

"Why?"

"Because if I don't, I'm going to puke." (And I was starting to feel nauseous)

She took off running, and I laid back and took some deep breaths to get myself settled until she came back. She arrived with the head nurse and a pan.

The nurse took one look at my arm, grabbed the needle, and BANG! right in on the first shot.

They should have police protection, as well, if there is a threat against them. They shouldn't, either, get to demand anonymity and complete expulsions of their criminal record so that they come across squeakier than they are.

But you are forgetting that it is not illegal, and therefore not criminal, to be a state sponsored executioner in the US.

It's when you're a NON-state-sponsored executioner that it's illegal here.

A state executioner is a murderer, and cannot be considered anything other than a murderer, as they actually do kill human beings, which is a whole world of difference from someone who might have committed a murder.

Legally speaking, a murder is a non-state-sponsored killing, so no, they are not legally murderers.

Morally, perhaps.

Morally, perhaps.

I'd argue this is one of those cases where morality is more important then legality. I don't care if we call them The Great Gods of Joygasm Giving, they're still killing people.

I'd argue this is one of those cases where morality is more important then legality. I don't care if we call them The Great Gods of Joygasm Giving, they're still killing people.

you are an interesting breed, you are.

you feel like your moral code should be enforced through law? hmm?

you are an interesting breed, you are.

you feel like your moral code should be enforced through law? hmm?

I didn't say that. I just meant that what the law defines them as doesn't really change what they do.


I think you are right. I think there should be stringent guidelines for who gets to be the executioner, but I don't think it needs to be a matter of public record. I mean if there is a list of executioners, what's to stop whack jobs from trying to go look them up and kill them?


You, however, clearly DO support your moral code being enforced by law.

I didn't say that. I just meant that what the law defines them as doesn't really change what they do.
they kill. murder is a legal term, murder means unlawful killing.

You, however, clearly DO support your moral code being enforced by law.
no I don't, where do you get that?

I'd argue this is one of those cases where morality is more important then legality. I don't care if we call them The Great Gods of Joygasm Giving, they're still killing people.

Not feeding hungry people is killing them too. So get your butt over to Africa and start feeding! Murderer.

http://blog.esaba.com/projects/catphotos/catimages/01332305.jpg

If their identities are released, then their family and kids WILL be harmed. Same reason why police officers are not put in phone books.

That and, the state and government is doing the execution, the people present doing the job are merely tools.

If their identities are released, then their family and kids WILL be harmed. Same reason why police officers are not put in phone books.

That and, the state and government is doing the execution, the people present doing the job are merely tools.
I know a few local sheriffs that are listed in the phone book, it is their choice to list their number apparently

Except other doctors don't kill people. In fact you could say the take an oath to do just the opposite....

None of these people are doctors. Also, whoever these people are, I don't give a fuck what else they do in between killing people.



"I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anyone when asked to do so nor will I suggest such a course."

Any "medical professional", i.e. medical doctor, involved in an execution will have their licence revoked, as such participation is a gross violation of professional ethics - you can check that with the AMA and probably your state medical association. Not to mention that having trained medical professionals involved would sully the entire profession, and also lend legitimacy to what is ultimately an act of pure barbarism that goes against every single and core basic value of the medical profession.

It would make the choice to perform an execution even more difficult, as it would probably make the sickos willing to take the job less willing if they knew they'd have to be open about it, and would very much aid in the final abolishment of this travesty of justice and decency.

If you can't find anyone to do it, you won't be able to do it, and that's the way it should be everywhere.

What I'd want is for no-one to take the job. Period. If they're too squeamish to have the general public know who they are, then tough-o for the state-sanctioned serial killer crowd.

Then those people should seriously consider a more positive hobby, such as stamp-collecting, or historical re-enactments. They're the ones putting themselves in harm's way. No-one's forcing them to murder people.

Oh? You happen to know that licensed doctors perform executions in the USA? Could you please tell me their names, so that I may contact the AMA and the WMA, so they may start proceedings to revoke their licences?



They kill people. That's enough. Or do you somehow think your irrelevant semantics change that?



Irrelevant nonsense. Or, would you like doctors to start experimenting on humans as Mengele did? Would you laud them for it? Respect them?



And they should face the consequences of being a killer. They should have thought of their honour before they decided to execute someone.

No, it makes far more sense then you're claiming. And no, I don't feel at all hypocritical for what I've said in this thread. If your executioners are feeling nervous, it's due in no small part to the pervasiveness of your American gun-culture. And I now have even less pity, sympathy or empathy for these murderers than when I first weighed in.

Okay, so, just checking the members list here, you all have enrolled in Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church logic classes?

See, they feel the exact same way about soldiers.

I'm always extremely fascinated by the arguments that crop up in any discussion of the death penalty and no doubt this is a very interesting issue.

I'll just say straight off that I don't support the death penalty. I find it quite curious that a nation can claim to be such a bastion of civility when such a barbarous practice flies in the face of this.
However, I also, immensely, despise vigilantism no matter how justified it is perceived to be. So on that note I would also disagree with the identification of executioners.

That licensed doctors take part does raise myriad moral issues. I cannot agree with their taking part in any way, however if executions are going to take place - and they do - then there should be a professional on hand to supervise it. They may raise their objections on moral grounds but I don't see how supervising this can contravene them. The fact is they simply do not have the political clout (or perhaps they [the AMA] do but either choose to do nothing or it simply has no effect, I'm not an American I don't know) to single-handedly abolish the death penalty . If by their presence they can negate - or at least limit - the suffering of the person to be executed then I would support such a thing.

Personally, I do not see this as lending support to execution. Look at it this way: say a man is going to die from some disease that has no cure. A doctor should, all the same, do all in his power to limit that man's suffering.
Now perhaps this is something of an oversimplification of the matter but I would urge you to just consider it.
If they are there in a supervisory role then the matter is out of their hands. However if they are there to do the deed themselves then I suppose I simply could not agree with it. After all, a doctor will treat a criminal who is injured without taking into consideration his previous actions. It is not his place to judge the criminal, he is bound by ethical standards to provide treatment to any person that needs it.

In summation? Doctors shouldn't perform executions, however if they do they should still be protected. If they're there to supervise and limit suffering then so be it.

I've never understood why American states in an effort to choose more and more humane methods of execution end up picking methods that cause more pain and distress than the last. The most cack handed suicidee can sit in their car with a hosepipe from the exhaust, why can't the states organise something like that?they should put the into deep sleep.. before injecting them or gassing them.

It's costlier and more uncertain than incarceration, even if in some ways less brutal.

How is it more uncertain? You can't get out of jail and commit another crime once you're dead. ;)

But this is just one more example of people showing more concern for the poor, suffering murderers than their innocent victims. First those assholes holding a candlelit vigil for Timothy McVeigh (did they also hold one for the people he blew up, including the little boy who died with shards of glass in his belly?), and now let's identity the executioners, like they're criminals themselves. :rolleyes:

Every state should just do what Utah does: giving the people on death row three ways to die.

1. Lethal Injection

2. Hanging

3. Firing Squad.

The Mormons are so nice that they even give you three different alternatives to your death!

You're reading too much into my statement. Wow... what an absolutist.
I just take it to it's worst possible conclusion upon you supporting it. If there are people who kill abortion doctors because they hate abortion would there not be those who kill executioners?

Okay, so, just checking the members list here, you all have enrolled in Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church logic classes?

See, they feel the exact same way about soldiers.


Soldiers take an oath to not kill people? That's a new one.

See, they feel the exact same way about soldiers.

So? You think I'd like soldiers?

Soldiers take an oath to not kill people? That's a new one.

The position I'm talking about refers to "killers" in general, not "doctors killing people". You're not advocating non-doctors to be hired for the job, you're simply saying the people that do the job (doctors or otherwise) are killers and should have their identities revealed, and themselves and their families put at risk so that nobody wants to do the job.

So? You think I'd like soldiers?

*shrugs* You automatically hate and wish bad things upon anyone in any country's army who's killed someone in battle?

Soldiers take an oath to not kill people? That's a new one.

Is it the breaking of the oath or the actual killing that merits the removal of their anonymity?

*shrugs* You automatically hate and wish bad things upon anyone in any country's army who's killed someone in battle?

Hate is a labour-intensive emotion I save only for people I know. Do I feel disdain for people who kill people? Yes, I do. Especially for soldiers, and especially for those who say they fight for peace like the whore who fucks for virginity.

Hate is a labour-intensive emotion I save only for people I know. Do I feel disdain for people who kill people? Yes, I do. Especially for soldiers, and especially for those who say they fight for peace like the whore who fucks for virginity.

Is disdain enough for you to want bad things to happen to them, possibly being killed?

The position I'm talking about refers to "killers" in general, not "doctors killing people". You're not advocating non-doctors to be hired for the job, you're simply saying the people that do the job (doctors or otherwise) are killers and should have their identities revealed, and themselves and their families put at risk so that nobody wants to do the job.

No I didn't. That was Fassigen.

Is it the breaking of the oath or the actual killing that merits the removal of their anonymity?
When a doctor breaks his/her oath they're struck from their medical register (or the country's equivalent). That often makes the headlines.

Hate is a labour-intensive emotion I save only for people I know. Do I feel disdain for people who kill people? Yes, I do. Especially for soldiers, and especially for those who say they fight for peace like the whore who fucks for virginity.

A whore with a mission. I like it

Is disdain enough for you to want bad things to happen to them, possibly being killed?

It's enough for me not to wish them success, but utter failure.

How is it more uncertain? You can't get out of jail and commit another crime once you're dead. ;)

You can rarely, if ever, be truly certain that the convicted person is, in fact, guilty. People have been wrongly convicted and wrongly put to death. That makes the system very uncertain, as you can't bring someone back to life upon exoneration.

Believe me, I would have no problem with certain criminals being put to death. Some people are enough of a danger to society that it would be better to be rid of them completely. However, if a single person is put to death when they are innocent of the crime, that invalidates the entire system in my mind.


When a doctor breaks his/her oath they're struck from their medical register (or the country's equivalent). That often makes the headlines.

Are they now? Most oaths are taken at medical schools, and are often changed a bit from the original Hippocratic Oath. In the US, at least, it is the state that provides medical licenses. If the state specifically hires a doctor to perform an execution, that state is highly unlikely to then revoke the doctor's license for doing so.

Are they now? Most oaths are taken at medical schools, and are often changed a bit from the original Hippocratic Oath. In the US, at least, it is the state that provides medical licenses. If the state specifically hires a doctor to perform an execution, that state is highly unlikely to then revoke the doctor's license for doing so.

Normally the oath would be broken due to gross misconduct, illegality, etc etc. Sometimes, as in the case of Harold Shipman, causing death.

Either way, when the medical boards/register says goodbye to them it would hit the headlines.

Maybe the US is different. Shame.

I just take it to it's worst possible conclusion upon you supporting it. If there are people who kill abortion doctors because they hate abortion would there not be those who kill executioners?

I dunno, maybe you need to reign in your pervasive American gun-culture a little, there.

Normally the oath would be broken due to gross misconduct, illegality, etc etc. Sometimes, as in the case of Harold Shipman, causing death.

Either way, when the medical boards/register says goodbye to them it would hit the headlines.

Maybe the US is different. Shame.

If a doctor does lose a medical license for such conduct, it would (and does) make headlines. But executions are state-sanctioned. Thus, a doctor is not going to lose his license for being a part of them.

I dunno, maybe you need to reign in your pervasive American gun-culture a little, there.

Do you need a gun to kill/terrorize someone or their family?

If a doctor does lose a medical license for such conduct, it would (and does) make headlines. But executions are state-sanctioned. Thus, a doctor is not going to lose his license for being a part of them.

I, and many others, would consider a doctor breaking his or her oath enough to warrant losing their license. State-sanctioned or not, they broke their oath to strive to preserve life.

I'd rather not be treated by a doctor who breaks their oath and finds nothing wrong with that morally.

I, and many others, would consider a doctor breaking his or her oath enough to warrant losing their license. State-sanctioned or not, they broke their oath to strive to preserve life.

I'd rather not be treated by a doctor who breaks their oath and finds nothing wrong with that morally.

So you think doctors who perform abortions should lose their license? Cos you see, the Hippocratic Oath forbids it.

So you think doctors who perform abortions should lose their license? Cos you see, the Hippocratic Oath forbids it.

"I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anyone when asked to do so nor will I suggest such a course."

Don't see where abortion fits into that oath. Maybe you could point it out?

Or would you like to try and define the "anyone" in the oath to include a foetus?

I, and many others, would consider a doctor breaking his or her oath enough to warrant losing their license. State-sanctioned or not, they broke their oath to strive to preserve life.

I'd rather not be treated by a doctor who breaks their oath and finds nothing wrong with that morally.

Out of curiosity (I'm not making a direct comparison as the differences are obvious), do you think a doctor who performs euthanasia for a willing patient with a terminal disease should lose his license?


"I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anyone when asked to do so nor will I suggest such a course."

Don't see where abortion fits into that oath. Maybe you could point it out?

Or would you like to try and define the "anyone" in the oath to include a foetus?

You paraphrased a very tiny portion of the Hippocratic Oath. The classical version of it (according to NOVA), is as follows:

I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

Interesting are the prohibitions against abortion and surgery. It's also interesting that physicians were charged with keeping medical knowledge in the family (and only the males, of course), as it were.

Various medical schools and organizations have taken bits and pieces of this oath and used them, but the actual Hippocratic Oath does bar a physician from performing abortions or surgery.

So you think doctors who perform abortions should lose their license? Cos you see, the Hippocratic Oath forbids it.

no it doesn't, not in the slightest. The modern hippocratic oath only pertains to the doctor's conduct with his or her patient. A fetus/embryo is not his patient, the woman is.

no it doesn't, not in the slightest. The hippocratic oath only pertains to the doctor's conduct with his or her patient. A fetus/embryo is not his patient, the woman is.

But what if a woman goes in for pre-natal care?

But what if a woman goes in for pre-natal care?

I'm not sure how many abortions are done during pre-natal care visits. Regardless, when a woman goes in for an abortion, the patient is the woman.

Everyone likes to mention the hippocratic oath - however, there's plenty of people who can administer injections who aren't doctors, whether long-time paramedics or large-animal veterinatians, possibly, etc. They shouldn't have to worry about harrassment as long as capital punishment is legal, because harrassment might affect their job performance, which wouldn't be appreciated by the inmate or the public, I suspect. Capital punishment should be "safe, legal and rare," to borrow a phrase. :p

Do you need a gun to kill/terrorize someone or their family?

Hey - it's your culture's traditional, preferred & firmly ensconced method/tool for rendering people fearful and/or unalive - don't go bitching about it to me. You can't read a half-page on NSG without tripping over some nutter screaming blue murder 'cause they're afraid some branch of government might curtail their God-given right to own a fucking howitzer.

Congrats, you're all completely safe and secure (and armed to the teeth). Who could possibly be terrorized when all of you posses, at your fingertips, the means to very suddenly end the life of anyone who at any point crosses your path?

Out of curiosity (I'm not making a direct comparison as the differences are obvious), do you think a doctor who performs euthanasia for a willing patient with a terminal disease should lose his license?

"but never with a view to injury" to me would signify that keeping a terminally ill person alive against their wishes would be going against the oath as it causes them pain and injury. I'm not a doctor - that's just my interpretation and opinion.


You paraphrased a very tiny portion of the Hippocratic Oath. The classical version of it (according to NOVA), is as follows:

*snip*

Interesting are the prohibitions against abortion and surgery. It's also interesting that physicians were charged with keeping medical knowledge in the family (and only the males, of course), as it were.

Various medical schools and organizations have taken bits and pieces of this oath and used them, but the actual Hippocratic Oath does bar a physician from performing abortions or surgery.

You took that version. Here's another one. This one's from 1964, a tad more modern and maybe applicable:


I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.


Also, Fassigen supplied one and I do believe he is in medicine so I will take his verbatim also.

You took that version. Here's another one. This one's from 1964, a tad more modern and maybe applicable:

Also, Fassigen supplied one and I do believe he is in medicine so I will take his verbatim also.

also to point out from wiki:

Several parts of the oath have been removed or re-shaped over the years in various countries, schools, and societies as the social, religious, and political importance of medicine has changed. Most schools administer some form of oath, but the great majority no longer use the ancient version, which praised Greek deities, advocated teaching of men, and forbade general practitioners from surgery, abortion, and euthanasia. Also missing from the ancient Oath and from many modern versions are the complex ethical issues that face the modern physician.

Hmmmmmm,

as pointed out, an outdated version which is not administered by the majority of medical schools.

Now, sure, true, the classical version may state such, however Ifreann's comment was that a doctor who performs an abortion violates his oath. In fact he stated:

So you think doctors who perform abortions should lose their license? Cos you see, the Hippocratic Oath forbids it.

This is untrue for the most part. Yes, older versions of the oath did contain a statement swearing against abortions, however, a doctor can never be said to violate that oath, if he never swore to it, so why should he lose his license?

Since most doctors swear to an oath that does NOT contain a prohibition on abortion, those doctors can not be said to violate that oath by performing abortions.

The ancient code of hammurabi prohibited a lot of things, but I can't be said to do something illegal for doing something prohibited by it, if it doesn't apply to me.

Hey - it's your culture's traditional, preferred & firmly ensconced method/tool for rendering people fearful and/or unalive - don't go bitching about it to me.

I has nothing at all to do with my culture, my dear. I've never owned a gun. I've never shot one. And I certainly don't use one to "render people fearful and/or unalive."


"but never with a view to injury" to me would signify that keeping a terminally ill person alive against their wishes would be going against the oath as it causes them pain and injury. I'm not a doctor - that's just my interpretation and opinion.

Makes sense. You seemed really hung up on "preserving life" and, all too often, people who use that type of phrasing for medicine think that life should be preserved no matter what the quality of that life is.

You took that version. Here's another one. This one's from 1964, a tad more modern and maybe applicable:

"That version" is the Hippocratic Oath. Like I said, medical schools and organizations have taken bits and pieces, reworded them, and added others. But I think it's rather misleading to call any of those new constructs the Hippocratic Oath. If I took the words "And to the republic, for which it stands" and then constructed something very different from the pledge of allegiance around it, would it still be the pledge of allegiance?

as pointed out, an outdated version which is not administered by the majority of medical schools.

How much does something have to change before it ceases to become a "version" and becomes something entirely different?

Meanwhile, the fact that the oath differs from school to school, country to country, etc. means that we can't make many assumptions abotu what a given doctor swore to. And there is also the fact that a license to practice medicine is granted by the state, not by the medical school. So a loss of license would really only occur if the state decided that the doctor had done something worthy of losing said license. Considering that the state is carrying out the execution, it clearly doesn't apply here.

The ancient code of hammurabi prohibited a lot of things, but I can't be said to do something illegal for doing something prohibited by it, if it doesn't apply to me.

But do you refer to current law as "The Code of Hammurabi"?

Makes sense. You seemed really hung up on "preserving life" and, all too often, people who use that type of phrasing for medicine think that life should be preserved no matter what the quality of that life is.
Not I. The difference is the executed does not get a say into whether or not they wish to die - the euthanised-elect would be requesting it to end their suffering. To me, any doctor which willfully puts a patient through suffering is just as bad as someone who is an executioner.



"That version" is the Hippocratic Oath. Like I said, medical schools and organizations have taken bits and pieces, reworded them, and added others. But I think it's rather misleading to call any of those new constructs the Hippocratic Oath. If I took the words "And to the republic, for which it stands" and then constructed something very different from the pledge of allegiance around it, would it still be the pledge of allegiance?

I still fail to see anything to do with abortion in any modern Oath, which was what I was addressing with Ifreann's point was in the beginning.

So people feel no sympathy for the doctors involved in the executions when their names are released, possibly placing them in danger, or apparently for soldiers who kill in battle, but they do for the convicted murderers?

Did you attend Timothy McVeigh's candlelit vigil with those other phonies getting their fifteen minutes on TV shedding big well-practiced tears?

So people feel no sympathy for the doctors involved in the executions when their names are released, possibly placing them in danger, or apparently for soldiers who kill in battle, but they do for the convicted murderers?

I have respect for the rights of those murderers, even if they are murderers, and as such I support their right to seek compensation for the violation of their rights.

I have respect for the rights of those murderers, even if they are murderers, and as such I support their right to seek compensation for the violation of their rights.

How are their rights being violated? If capital punishment is legal, and they are convicted of a capital offense by a jury of their peers and sentenced by a judge in good standing and etc., their rights have not been violated, they have gone through a perfectly legal process.

How are their rights being violated? If capital punishment is legal, and they are convicted of a capital offense by a jury of their peers and sentenced by a judge in good standing and etc., their rights have not been violated, they have gone through a perfectly legal process.

They have the constitutional right against cruel and unusual punishment, if the execution is done in such a fashion as to amount to cruel and unusual, it is a violation of their rights.

Have you been reading this thread?

Also, as an aside, a judge can not sentence someone to death in this country.

Not I. The difference is the executed does not get a say into whether or not they wish to die - the euthanised-elect would be requesting it to end their suffering.

Hence the reason I wasn't going to make a comparison. I was just curious as to your stance on that issue.


To me, any doctor which willfully puts a patient through suffering is just as bad as someone who is an executioner.

Interesting. Are you sure? I think the medical community, as a whole, needs to move towards allowing euthanasia for terminal patients. But I certainly don't see doctors who, knowing that they would be risking their careers and liberty by doing so, do not perform euthanasia as having done something awful.

I still fail to see anything to do with abortion in any modern Oath, which was what I was addressing with Ifreann's point was in the beginning.

Of course there's nothing in any modern oath. Abortions are legal and accepted medical practice now. =)

I suppose you might find such oaths in countries where abortion is still illegal. I wonder what it looks like, for instance, in Ireland. Or in many Central/South American countries.

Edit: At least one doctor in Ireland cites the fact that she took the Hippocratic Oath as her reason for not prescribing the morning-after pill, as she swore not to provide abortions. (Of course, that demonstrates how little she knows about the way it works, but the point remains. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3910957.stm

I suppose you might find such oaths in countries where abortion is still illegal. I wonder what it looks like, for instance, in Ireland. Or in many Central/South American countries.
Abortion isn't illegal in Ireland ;)

Edit: At least one doctor in Ireland cites the fact that she took the Hippocratic Oath as her reason for not prescribing the morning-after pill, as she swore not to provide abortions. (Of course, that demonstrates how little she knows about the way it works, but the point remains. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3910957.stm

Well, that's Northern Ireland, so I can't really comment on that - however it has been seen that when the religious beliefs of GP's/pharmacies mix with such cases, they start behaving (ironically) like God.

Hey - it's your culture's traditional, preferred & firmly ensconced method/tool for rendering people fearful and/or unalive - don't go bitching about it to me. You can't read a half-page on NSG without tripping over some nutter screaming blue murder 'cause they're afraid some branch of government might curtail their God-given right to own a fucking howitzer.

...I want a howitzer. :D

Abortion isn't illegal in Ireland ;)

Yes, it is. It's constitutionally illegal unless the mother's life is in danger. Irish citizens who seek elective abortions have to leave the country - usually to the UK - to obtain one.

There was a case in Ireland just recently where a young girl wanted to abort a fetus with anencephaly (if you don't know what it is, look it up - with pictures). The Irish government was keeping her from doing so, because she was a ward of the state and her life was not in danger. Eventually, they gave in and let her travel to the UK, where she could legally obtain an abortion - something she could not do within Ireland.

Well, that's Northern Ireland, so I can't really comment on that - however it has been seen that when the religious beliefs of GP's/pharmacies mix with such cases, they start behaving (ironically) like God.

In this case, religion doesn't necessarily have to come into it. This doctor apparently took an oath not to "provide an abortive remedy." Now, if she understood the mechanism by which the morning after pill works (or the biology of pregnancy, whichever one she is confused on), she would know that it is not an "abortive remedy," but that is beside the point.

Look, we have the secret of "who kille you" for a reason: Prevention of hauntings. It's not guilt that we're afraid of, it's fear itself that drives us. Why? Because, if your killer is not known to you, in any way, how can you get to him? The firing squad had the blank, so that the executed would not be able to discern the innocent as they passed on. Executioners wore hoods so that their victims could not haunt them, since they have no face to anchor to. It all comes down to the fact that we are a bunch of scared, silly little creatures. But heck, I'm scared too, so I say, keep it! Let the secrecy of the executioner remain!!

Ah the joys of utterly ignoring the Hippocratic Oath. How on earth do those people get to sleep at night?

I thought there was a high turnover of the people who do this kind of thing...

Yes, it is. It's constitutionally illegal unless the mother's life is in danger. Irish citizens who seek elective abortions have to leave the country - usually to the UK - to obtain one.
Abortion is not illegal in Ireland. It is restricted. :)

There was a case in Ireland just recently where a young girl wanted to abort a fetus with anencephaly (if you don't know what it is, look it up - with pictures). The Irish government was keeping her from doing so, because she was a ward of the state and her life was not in danger. Eventually, they gave in and let her travel to the UK, where she could legally obtain an abortion - something she could not do within Ireland.

Partially true. I'm well aware of the case.



In this case, religion doesn't necessarily have to come into it. This doctor apparently took an oath not to "provide an abortive remedy." Now, if she understood the mechanism by which the morning after pill works (or the biology of pregnancy, whichever one she is confused on), she would know that it is not an "abortive remedy," but that is beside the point.
The article didn't exactly go into detail about her reasons - more often than not in those instances, as with those in pharmacies, when the interview goes beyond a few lines - a persons moral beliefs come out... having stemmed from "I believe because God says in the Bible...."

This is hardly relevant to the case at hand is it?

Abortion is not illegal in Ireland. It is restricted. :)

By that definition, you pretty much won't find a country where abortion is illegal. It's simply restricted. Even the most oppressive countries will allow abortions in specific instances.

The article didn't exactly go into detail about her reasons

They give an exact quote in which she states that she took the "original Hipocratic Oath" and promised not to provide abortive remedies. It's pretty clear what she is listing as her reasons.

- more often than not in those instances, as with those in pharmacies, when the interview goes beyond a few lines - a persons moral beliefs come out... having stemmed from "I believe because God says in the Bible...."

That's nice, but there is nothing like that here. She says she cannot do it because she swore an oath not to.

This is hardly relevant to the case at hand is it?

Weren't you saying that doctors should lose their licenses for doing something against the oaths they took? By that logic, this doctor would have to lose her license if she performed an abortion or prescribed RU-486.

I thought there was a high turnover of the people who do this kind of thing...

I assume that by "high turnover" you don't mean that they get fired a lot.

I assume that by "high turnover" you don't mean that they get fired a lot.

Probably not. Even in past societies where execution was much more common (and commonly accepted), executioners exhibited emotional problems as a result of their participation. This is a large part of the reason for firing squads including more than one person, extra switches on the electric chair with only one of them hooked up, etc. It seemed to help if those participating never knew for sure that they had actually killed the prisoner.

By that definition, you pretty much won't find a country where abortion is illegal. It's simply restricted. Even the most oppressive countries will allow abortions in specific instances.

Well, yes. I'm pretty aware of my own constitution as well thanks.



They give an exact quote in which she states that she took the "original Hipocratic Oath" and promised not to provide abortive remedies. It's pretty clear what she is listing as her reasons.

"As a doctor, I am dealing with two patients once conception has occurred - I have to think of both the person sitting in front of me and the baby," she said.

"I took the original Hippocratic oath when I qualified, which said that I would not do anything to cause an abortion."


Two patients? That's nice. "Hello microscopic cluster of cells. How are you feeling today?" Pardon me if I don't feel a cluster of cells less than 72 hours after conception quantifies as a 'patient'. Seemingly the overwhelming majority of doctors agree.

"Original Hippocratic oath"? Very few medical schools do that these days, particularly so in the UK as they have their own guidlines- I wonder if morals/religious beliefs didn't come into it....

That's nice, but there is nothing like that here. She says she cannot do it because she swore an oath not to.
What oath did she swear? Can someone find one with abortion in it?



Weren't you saying that doctors should lose their licenses for doing something against the oaths they took? By that logic, this doctor would have to lose her license if she performed an abortion or prescribed RU-486.

Yeah, except no doctor I have come across (in all walks of life) has ever used an oath with the word 'abortion' in it.

"I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anyone when asked to do so nor will I suggest such a course."

appears to be the most common form, even where I am. Shall we dance and try to define what a 'patient' or 'person' is again? I'd rather not. ;)

Well, yes.

Then you can see why it is a useless way to define the term. If abortions are illegal unless the woman's life is in clear danger, that goes a bit beyond "restriction." Abortions are "restricted" in the US. In Ireland, they are illegal unless the mother's life is in danger.

I'm pretty aware of my own constitution as well thanks.

Good to know.


Two patients? That's nice. "Hello microscopic cluster of cells. How are you feeling today?" Pardon me if I don't feel a cluster of cells less than 72 hours after conception quantifies as a 'patient'. Seemingly the overwhelming majority of doctors agree.

I don't either. But that is an opinion thing.

It is also situational. If the woman actually knew whether or not an egg had been fertilized and wanted the pregnancy, a doctor would take the needs of a developing embryo into account in any treatment, essentially treating it as a second patient. In truth, doctors already take that into account when they ask women "Is there any chance you might be pregnant?" before choosing a given test or course of treatment.

"Original Hippocratic oath"? Very few medical schools do that these days, particularly so in the UK as they have their own guidlines- I wonder if morals/religious beliefs didn't come into it....

Few medical schools do it, but some do. I wouldn't be surprised if it were more common in southern Ireland than in the UK and more common in Northern Ireland than the rest of the UK.

What oath did she swear? Can someone find one with abortion in it?

Yes. The original Hippocratic Oath. The one she says she took. I've quoted it already in this thread.

Yeah, except no doctor I have come across (in all walks of life) has ever used an oath with the word 'abortion' in it.

That doesn't mean that none have. Most medical schools and organizations don't use an oath that precludes abortion, as it has become generally accepted medical practice. That hardly means that none do - especially in areas where abortion is less common or more restricted.

Then you can see why it is a useless way to define the term. If abortions are illegal unless the woman's life is in clear danger, that goes a bit beyond "restriction." Abortions are "restricted" in the US. In Ireland, they are illegal unless the mother's life is in danger.
No, it's not a useless way to define a term. Something is either legal or illegal, it is pretty cut and dried. Something cannot be "a bit illegal", or "illegal unless..."

It is also situational. If the woman actually knew whether or not an egg had been fertilized and wanted the pregnancy, a doctor would take the needs of a developing embryo into account in any treatment, essentially treating it as a second patient. In truth, doctors already take that into account when they ask women "Is there any chance you might be pregnant?" before choosing a given test or course of treatment.
"I'm paying you, it's my body, it's my decision, I'm your patient".



I wouldn't be surprised if it were more common in southern Ireland than in the UK
Why? What are you basing that assumption on?

Yes. The original Hippocratic Oath. The one she says she took. I've quoted it already in this thread.
Oh, you mean the one from over 2,500 years ago? Well if she was a practising doctor in Northern Ireland/UK she would have to be a part of the GMC (General Medical Council) and as such was have to adhere to their Standards of Good Practice etc etc; which include the following version of the Oath "First of all I would define medicine as the complete removal of the distress of
the sick, the alleviation of the more violent diseases, and the refusal to
undertake to cure cases in which the disease has already won the mastery,
knowing that everything is not possible to medicine."

If she didn't treat the patient she would have been accused of discrimination because she was pregnant. The doctor could take whatever oath under the sun she liked, so long as she adhered to the practices and standards of the GMC and its oath. She didn't. Case closed.


That doesn't mean that none have. Most medical schools and organizations don't use an oath that precludes abortion, as it has become generally accepted medical practice. That hardly means that none do - especially in areas where abortion is less common or more restricted.
I understand that it doesn't mean that none have - it means that doctors today cannot discriminate against their patients for being pregnant. The can be, and are, rightly fired.

Again, I fail to see why the issue of abortion or the morning after pill is being tied into the death penalty - one is a person, the other a cluster of cells. Seems a bit tenous to me.