Physician Participation in Administration of Death Penalty is Legitimate
The question has been raised whether it is moral for a physician to participate in the administration of the death penalty. This is an issue that many professionals in the field have strong opinions about, regardless of their own personal beliefs about the death penalty in general. Physicians are traditionally practitioners of the healing arts; is using this knowledge to put someone to death a corruption of their professional ethics? In order to fully understand the issues surrounding physician participation in the death penalty, it is necessary to explore three main areas of analysis. First, we must survey the ethical justification for the death penalty. If the death penalty itself is morally unjustified, then physician participation in it is, by definition, wrong. Secondly, justification of the death penalty aside, do condemned criminals retain a right to health that the death penalty would violate? Finally, we will examine the special duties of the physician - even if the death penalty in general is justified, is there perhaps a subtler breach of ethical duties by inviting physician participation in the process?
Ethical Justification
Returning to our first sphere of inquiry, is the death penalty justified -- does it violate a prisoner's human right to health? Traditionally, two main explanations for the death penalty have been offered - deterrence and vengeance. The evidence on deterrence is doubtful at best. On the one hand, statistics do not indicate the existence of a significant deterrent effect. A United Nations committee studying capital punishment found that "the data which now exist show no correlation between the existence of capital...
... middle of paper ...
...viewed as a healthy relationship. For those doctors who believe in the death penalty, there should be no sanctions for participating in a legal procedure, which they are doing for the best interests of society, and in the name of justice.
Conclusion
By examining the justifications behind the death penalty and the human rights criminals retain upon being convicted of a felony, we were unable to deduce any legitimate grounds upon which physicians, or any health personnel, should be excluded from participating in executions. While some physicians would argue that participation by doctors in administering the death penalty amounts to a betrayal of the very precepts of medicine, I have attempted to provide an alternate perspective on the situation. Just as no doctor should be compelled to assist in an execution, no doctor should be banned from doing so, either.
Physicians face an ethical dilemma when confronting their patients who are suffering. Many have to choose between abiding by the law or ignoring the law and acting on their own beliefs by assisting in a patient’s suicide. Dr. Jack Kevorkian is certainly one doctor who has taken the illegal route in assisting in many of his patients suicides. In “Killer Doc,” William F. Buckley provides a brief overview of the case and informs his audience of the shocking incidents of Kevorkian’s performed euthanasia on Thomas Youk. In “Offering a Helping Hand to those Who Long to Die,” Mark Nichols compares the famous euthanasia doctors, Dr. Kevorkian and Austrailia’s Dr. Philip Nitschke.
There are many convincing and compelling arguments for and against Physician Assisted Suicide. There are numerous different aspects of this issue, including religious, legal and ethical issues. However, for the purpose of this paper, I will examine the ethical concerns of both sides. There are strong pro and con arguments regarding this, and I will make a case for both. It is definitely an issue that has been debated for years and will continue to be debated in years to come.
There are many legal and ethical issues when discussing the topic of physician-assisted suicide (PAS). The legal issues are those regarding numerous court cases over the past few decades, the debate over how the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution comes into play, and the legalization vs. illegalization of this practice. The 14th Amendment states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). PAS in the past has been upheld as illegal due to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the constitution, but in recent years this same 14th amendment is also part of the reasoning for legalizing PAS, “nor shall any State deprive any person of…liberty” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). The ethical issues surrounding this topic include a patient’s autonomy and dignity and if PAS should be legalized everywhere. This paper is an analysis of the PAS debate and explores these different issues using a specific case that went to the supreme courts called Washington et al. v. Glucksberg et al.
He is suggesting that they are united in this flea and ,thus, would equally be united in intimacy. In addition, he states, "This flea is you and I, and this our marriage bed, and marriage temple is." The speaker is suggesting that through the flea the two are married. Again, the flea represents marriage, union, and consummation through intimacy. However, the woman crushes the flea, thus, refusing his request, and states that neither she nor he is weakened by its death.
This essay explores the views of doctors, of the general public, and of the original Hippocratic Oath on the practices of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Considerable reference material is employed - from professional sources.
Physician-assisted suicide refers to the physician acting indirectly in the death of the patient -- providing the means for death. The ethics of PAS is a continually debated topic. The range of arguments in support and opposition of PAS are vast. Justice, compassion, the moral irrelevance of the difference between killing and letting die, individual liberty are many arguments for PAS. The distinction between killing and letting die, sanctity of life, "do no harm" principle of medicine, and the potential for abuse are some of the arguments in favor of making PAS illegal. However, self-determination, and ultimately respect for autonomy are relied on heavily as principle arguments in the PAS issue.
Much debate has arisen over the years about the moral suitability of taking part in sexual intercourse before being married to your true love. In John Donne's “The Flea” this topic is brought up when the speaker of the poem is trying to convince his addressee to partake in sexual intercourse with him although they are not married, by showing her that the act would be no more sinful or shameful than the bite of a flea. He uses the flea as a conceit in three main ways: first, after they have both been bitten, the flea now represents their union by the mixing of bodily fluids. Second, the flea represents innocence and the potential child they may bear together. Finally, he tries to prove that once she yields to his seduction she will have lost no more honour than when she killed the flea.
times. I don't feel it was a very good way to go about telling someone
The capital punishment has been cited as a reasonable sentence by those who advocate for retribution. This is essentially when it comes to justice so that people take full responsibility for their individual actions. Studies have proved that the decision to take away life of a person because they committed a certain crime serves to perpetuate the crime in question. It also serves to enhance the progress of organized and violent crime. It has been noted that various flaws in the justice system has led to the wrong conviction of innocent people. On the other hand, the guilty have also been set free, and a plethora of several cases has come up when a critical look at the capital punishment has been undertaken. Killers hardly kill their victims deliberately, but they probably act on anger, passion, or impulsively. In this regard, it is not proper to convict them exclusively without
Fleas were a popular subject of poetry in the Renaissance Era because poets were fascinated by the insects fearlessness and were inspired, soon becoming a popular subject among poets (Andy). Since the seventeenth century, the idea of “mingling of the blood” was an idea that Donne was interested, realizing that the courageous, tiny creature has drawn both of his blood and his mistress's blood which is something the woman wouldn't dare to do even to herself. As shown though analogy, tone, and symbolism, John Donne claims that there is no sin in being intimate in spite of marriage and that seduction is a powerful weapon.
very little when he wrote this poem at age 21.* But we know that he
When someone is legally convicted of a capital crime, it is possible for their punishment to be execution. The Death Penalty has been a controversial topic for many years. Some believe the act of punishing a criminal by execution is completely inhumane, while others believe it is a necessary practice needed to keep our society safe. In this annotated bibliography, there are six articles that each argue on whether or not the death penalty should be illegalized. Some authors argue that the death penalty should be illegal because it does not act as a deterrent, and it negatively effects the victim’s families. Other scholar’s state that the death penalty should stay legalized because there is an overcrowding in prisons and it saves innocent’s lives. Whether or not the death penalty should be
Some feel that a terminally ill patient should have a legal right to control the manner in which they die. Physicians and nurses have fought for the right to aid a patient in their death. Many families of the terminally ill have exhausted all of their funds caring for a dying patient and would prefer the option of assisted suicide to bankruptcy. While there are many strong opposing viewpoints, one of the strongest is that the terminally ill patient has the right to die in a humane, dignified manner. However, dignity in dying is not necessarily assured when a trusted doctor, whose professional ethics are to promote and maintain life, injects a terminally ill patient with a lethal dose of morphine.
“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is how the saying goes. Coined by the infamous Hammurabi’s Code around 1700 BC, this ancient expression has become the basis of a great political debate over the past several decades – the death penalty. While the conflict can be whittled down to a matter of morals, a more pragmatic approach shows defendable points that are far more evidence backed. Supporters of the death penalty advocate that it deters crime, provides closure, and is a just punishment for those who choose to take a human life. Those against the death penalty argue that execution is a betrayal of basic human rights, an ineffective crime deterrent, an economically wasteful option, and an outdated method. The debate has experienced varying levels of attention over the years, but has always kept in the eye of the public. While many still advocate for the continued use of capital punishment, the process is not the most cost effective, efficient, consistent, or up-to-date means of punishment that America could be using today.
Crime is everywhere. Wherever we look, we find criminals and crime. Criminals have become a part of our daily lives. Does this mean we let them be the darkness of our society? No, definitely not. Eliminating crime and criminals is our duty, and we cannot ignore it. Getting the rightly accused to a just punishment is very important. Some criminals commit a crime because they have no other option to survive, but some do it for fun. I do not advocate death penalty for everybody. A person, who stole bread from a grocery store, definitely does not deserve death penalty. However, a serial killer, who kills people for fun or for his personal gain, definitely deserves death penalty. Death penalty should continue in order to eliminate the garbage of our society. Not everybody deserves to die, but some people definitely do. I support death penalty because of several reasons. Firstly, I believe that death penalty serves as a deterrent and helps in reducing crime. Secondly, it is true that death penalty is irreversible, but it is hard to kill a wrongly convicted person due to the several chances given to the convicted to prove his innocence. Thirdly, death penalty assures safety of the society by eliminating these criminals. Finally, I believe in "lex tallionis" - a life for a life.