Another reason to not have a death penalty

I am not against the death penalty per se and have always regarded it as a punishment, not a deterrent.

The irony is that she was resuscitated, taken to hospital so that she can recover and be executed. Barmy.

Franski

The irony is that she was resuscitated, taken to hospital so that she can recover and be executed. Barmy.

Barmy

It's evil.

Yes. 🤬🤬

It is sadistic!

It’s disgusting that state sponsored killing is allowed. Shocking that the doctor involved in this failed killing was involved in a similar disaster recently. The man in that case suffered a stroke as a result.

How can a doctor whose purpose is to save life and do no harm be involved in this barbaric ‘work’

It does go against 'Do no harm'.

Yes that is shocking Iam. I thought doctors weren't allowed to participate due to medical ethics but in some states in America they are.

Iam64

It’s disgusting that state sponsored killing is allowed. Shocking that the doctor involved in this failed killing was involved in a similar disaster recently. The man in that case suffered a stroke as a result.

How can a doctor whose purpose is to save life and do no harm be involved in this barbaric ‘work’

I thought that the medical profession wanted nothing to do with this? I suppose there are always rogue players. I do know that those producing drugs for euthanasia won’t supply the prison service. That must add to the bungling.

Cabowich

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Yet Rudakabana is in his cell playing FIFA 27 ….

I think what you are saying is that the death penalty should be applied to certain people. If so, I agree totally but not sure I'd actually be able to administer the means of death unless it was one of my loved ones.

What has happened to Christa Pike is awful, not least because of the 30 year wait. It would be the kindest thing to let her go now, using an instant, painless, and trauma-free means.

Dear me - I don't know what went wrong with my last post. It sounds as though I'd doubt my ability to administer the means of death unless it was to one of my loved ones.

It wasn't a Freudian slip! I meant to say I probably would be able to administer the means of death to a person who had killed any of my loved ones.

Note to self: re-read post before posting.

Yes they are Macaydia, you can google it.

Macaydia

Smileless2012

Yes that is shocking Iam. I thought doctors weren't allowed to participate due to medical ethics but in some states in America they are.

No they are not

Correct- The American Medical Ethics Association prohibits active participation.

Some states may have doctors that are present, certify competence or officially pronounce death- but never to actively participate. They would loose their medical licence.

Oreo

This does happen occasionally and in my view the most humane thing to do now is to administer a lethal dose of morphine.

Yes, this was my thought too. They had no difficulty in sentencing her to death (a separate debate in itself), so why do they think it would be unacceptable now to finish what they've started? It's not as though she's likely to recover (it seems that brain damage is inevitable). Maybe they want to nurse her back to health so they can start again, more or less from scratch?

As I said this can be googled LemonJam. The presence of doctor in the states that still have the death penalty in law is permitted or required to varying degrees. As well as pronouncing death they can assist with the placement of the intravenous lines, the latter being active participation.

You study all that time, to learn how to heal, and then you chose this for your career?

Smileless2012

As I said this can be googled LemonJam. The presence of doctor in the states that still have the death penalty in law is permitted or required to varying degrees. As well as pronouncing death they can assist with the placement of the intravenous lines, the latter being active participation.

The AME guidelines on the matter can indeed googled Smileless. You posted I thought doctors weren't allowed to participate due to medical ethics but in some states in America they are This is wrong- they cant- the AME prohibits them from participating. Your use of semantic language doesn't change the prohibitions in the AME guidelines in the US.

You say the doctors can assist with the placement of IV lines- Not sure what you mean by assist though. Doctors can't participate by assisting with the placement and the IV lines will always be placed by none Drs.

Phlebotomy skill for the placement of IV lines is not a high level skill, does not require professional qualification and usually 2 hours training is sufficient then and practice. Phlebotomists are much better due to the fact they do it more often- it's their sole function. The doctors may check that the people placing IV lines for prisoners on death row have been adequately trained but that not assisting. The dcotors are in the room and could theoretically stop the IV placement process if the person placing IV line does something wrong. But a doctor but would never participate in the IV line placement process and risk being struck off as a doctor.

You say that doctors are present in the room and pronouncing death. That is the case as death requires medical qualifications certify after the process has concluded carried out by other none doctors.

Disagree with google then LemonJam because if you ask the question, the answer is yes, doctors can assist with the placement of intravenous lines and have done so.

Your view is your view- I do not share it and prefer to believe the AME guidelines provision.

AMA

It isn't my view LemonJam I googled it, if you don't believe me then google it yourself.

I am capable of googling and have done so- thanks

Smileless2012

It isn't my view LemonJam I googled it, if you don't believe me then google it yourself.

AMA Policy on Lethal Injection and Capital Punishment
• Prohibited Actions: The AMA explicitly prohibits physicians from prescribing, preparing, or administering execution drugs, selecting injection sites, starting intravenous (IV) lines, monitoring vital signs, or otherwise assisting or contributing to execution methods.
• Core Rationale: As a profession dedicated to preserving life and healing, the AMA views any participation in a legally authorized execution as a direct violation of medical ethics and the principle of nonmaleficence (doing no harm).
• Permitted Actions: Physicians are restricted to limited, non-participatory roles, such as testifying about a prisoner's medical history or mental state, or certifying death after another official has already pronounced it.
Would you like to know more about the specific exceptions the AMA allows (such as treating acute suffering) or how state laws interact with these medical ethics guidelines?

As I've said Syracute google it because I can't be bothered to keep repeating myself.

You can repeat yourself as often or as little as you choose Smileless - not a problem.

Syracute has googled for you and copied and pasted relevant AMA specific guidelines- so no reason for you to google the guidelines yourself. Can't really argue with the AMA verbatim detail.

I'm not arguing with the AMA guidelines LemonJam, you're arguing with what google says about doctors placing IV's when the death sentence is being carried out and for some reason, seem unable or unwilling to google it for yourself.