February 23, 2006
Morales Execution Delayed, Indefinitely
Michael Morales, who was convicted for murder in 1983 for raping and killing a teenage girl, has had his execution delayed because California officials were unable to comply with "a federal judge's conditions for carrying out the sentence" (New York Times).
Earlier on Tuesday, the Morales execution was first delayed after two anesthesiologists that were brought in to make sure that lethal drugs were administered properly for Morales’ execution refused to do so, saying this would violate "medical strictures against harming patients" (New York Times).
"While we contemplated a positive role that might enable us to verify a humane execution protocol for Mr. Morales, what is being asked of us now is ethically unacceptable," the doctors said in a statement regarding the Morales execution. "As a result, we have withdrawn from participation in this current process." (qtd. in International Herald Tribune).
Normally medical doctors administer drugs from another room, via an IV. When Morales's "defense attorneys claimed last week lethal injection was cruel and unusual punishment, barred by the Constitution," U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel ordered prison officials to "make medical experts available to ensure unnecessary pain was not inflicted" during Morales’
execution (Reuters).
The story of the Morales execution delay has become national news because it questions the Constitution's bar against "cruel and unusual punishment" and medical doctors' involvement in executions.
According to MSNBC's poll about the moral implications of Morales execution, 58% of 12,447 voters think, "No: The anesthesia isn't the execution. Advising on an inmate's vital signs shouldn't cause an ethical quandary." What do you think? Were the anesthesiologists facing a moral dilemma with the Morales execution, or not? Should Morales’s execution be delayed?
Posted by Tuck at 12:59 PM | Comments (1)
February 17, 2006
Cheney Hunting Accident: Press Blowup?
There's been a media frenzy over Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting accident - last Saturday the Vice President accidentally shot fellow hunter Harry Whittington, a millionaire attorney from Austin, Texas.
"The vice president didn't see him," says Cheney's spokeswoman, Lea Anne McBride. "The covey flushed and the vice president picked out a bird and was following it and shot. And by God, Harry was in the line of fire and got peppered pretty good." (qtd. in CNN.com)
Whittington is currently in stable condition at a Corpus Christi hospital, and it's been said that hunting accidents such as these are typical (see Cincinnati Post). Still, the media has been satirizing the accident (click for Washington Post's run down of jokes) and attacking the White House's public relations.
According to Yahoo! News, "in a testy exchange with reporters on Monday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan faced dozens of questions about the propriety of a private citizen making public a shooting incident involving the vice president and whether Cheney had followed White House protocol... McClellan declined to say if he was satisfied with the way it was handled. 'You can always look back at these issues and look at how to do a better job,' he said."
What do you think? Is this media frenzy a blowup of a hunting accident, or is the press right to criticize the Bush Administration's handling of the situation?
Posted by Tuck at 11:21 AM | Comments (24)
February 13, 2006
Mohammed Cartoon Conflict Grows
As Wikipedia.org notes, "what started with the problem of a Danish author trying to find an illustrator for his forthcoming book about Islam has become an international crisis. It has led to violence, arrests, international tensions, and a renewed debate about the scope of free speech and the place of Muslims in the West, and the West in Muslim countries."
Among the 12 Mohammed cartoons, the most controversial is Mohammed wearing a bomb as his turban.
Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen has refused to apologize for the publication of the cartoons as Muslim leaders have asked him to, and now two armed Muslim groups -- the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and the Popular Resistance Committee -- have threatened to "harm Danes, French and Norwegians in the Palestinian territories after newspapers in France and Norway opted to reprint the Danish cartoons" (DW World).
Besides spawning violent debate and bloody riots, the Mohammed cartoons have also inspired a controversial Holocaust cartoon competition, with aims to challenge how free the Western world really is about speech and expression.
Is the Mohammed cartoon conflict centered around legitimate debate about freedom of speech and respecting other cultures?
Posted by Tuck at 07:32 PM | Comments (8)
