« Cheney Hunting Accident: Press Blowup? | Main
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 "As a result, we have withdrawn from participation in this current process."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 February 23, 2006 12:59 PM
Comments
These "doctors" are activists, not physicians first. If they had an ethical problem to begin with they would have refused to participate initially, not wait until the spotlight was upon them to drop the bombshell in full view of the world. It's funny how strenuously some physicans can rally against the death penalty while they have no qualms performing abortions on thirteen year old girls. Well, not really funny, but you get what I mean.
Posted by: Dave (yep, I'm back) at May 6, 2006 09:22 AM
