Why not hanging for carrying out the death penalty?

TragicMonkey said:
No, you're losing the plot here. I'm saying physician-performed execution isn't a thing, that it contravenes medical ethics. Euthanasia is an entirely different situation, as I said above. That the latter can be acceptable in medical ethics does not mean the former is.
Click to expand...

What if we give condemned inmates the right to request euthanasia as an alternative to execution?
 
Thermal said:
You're making my argument for me. I'm in favor of euthanasia. What I'm not in favor of is playing fast and loose with the Hipp Oath as a justification for not performing executions. That's what makes it colorful excuses, not the action itself, that I consider humane.
Click to expand...

I do think there's a meaningful difference here Thermal.

In the case of euthanasia, the patient is asking for the doctor's actions. Their death occurs with the consent of the dying. In the case of execution, the patient is being put to death without their consent and against their wishes.

I'd say it's the difference between a person going to a boxing club and consenting to get punched in the face by a sparring partner...and person walking up out of the blue and punching them in the nose. ;)
 
Emily's Cat said:
What if we give condemned inmates the right to request euthanasia as an alternative to execution?
Click to expand...

I doubt the doctors would find it acceptable in that situation. Euthanasia is reserved for those in medical distress, not anybody on request.

But I don't have a problem with allowing those condemned to death to commit suicide if they freely choose to. They just have to do it themselves, without help. That's not allowed currently, though, and they actually revive those who try and fail, and take steps to prevent them trying again.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I do think there's a meaningful difference here Thermal.

In the case of euthanasia, the patient is asking for the doctor's actions. Their death occurs with the consent of the dying. In the case of execution, the patient is being put to death without their consent and against their wishes.

I'd say it's the difference between a person going to a boxing club and consenting to get punched in the face by a sparring partner...and person walking up out of the blue and punching them in the nose. ;)
Click to expand...

Of course there is a difference, and I could give reasons why an execution would not be acceptable, but euthanasia OK. But they would not rely on Do No Harm, which has been the point I dropped.
 
It seems Darat has abandoned his idea that hanging would be a most optimal execution method. I wonder if he still thinks that, or if he's come to the conclusion, based on the discussion in this thread, that there are other non-mechanical methods that are more optimal.
 
theprestige said:
It seems Darat has abandoned his idea that hanging would be a most optimal execution method. I wonder if he still thinks that, or if he's come to the conclusion, based on the discussion in this thread, that there are other non-mechanical methods that are more optimal.
Click to expand...

Use the same method we use for horses and other large animals - a pole-axe.

One whack, instant death. No doctor or finesse required.
 
theprestige said:
It seems Darat has abandoned his idea that hanging would be a most optimal execution method. I wonder if he still thinks that, or if he's come to the conclusion, based on the discussion in this thread, that there are other non-mechanical methods that are more optimal.
Click to expand...

Whether something's "optimal" depends on which aspects you prioritize. I still favor hanging because I value swiftness, finality, efficiency, the lack of requiring involvement from reluctant expert disciplines, and (although this one is strictly personal opinion) dignity. So if given a choice for myself I'd choose hanging, but I appreciate other people prioritize different aspects, and have different opinions on what best represents them.

I don't see a problem with having an array of several different methods available, and letting the condemned choose from them. Anything unacceptable to society would be kept off the menu so no drowning in champagne or skydiving without a parachute or, as previously mentioned, being crushed by nude ladies.
 
Myriad said:
You don't need even a med school dropout to insert an IV line and inject stuff into it. The problem is getting access to the stuff you need to inject to carry out a humane execution (especially, anesthetics) which can only be legally obtained or legally used by a licensed doctor.

And the Constitution rules out any attempt to force the issue ("since we can't get anesthetics we're just going to inject 50cc of whatever we can freely get access to, like unfiltered pond water or just air, and if you don't like the resulting suffering you could give us anesthetics to use instead").
Click to expand...

Why not use veterinarians? They can access the same drugs (although not human grade, but I doubt that would make any material difference). And vets aren't as-a-whole barred from executing animals when deemed necessary, so perhaps the ethical quandary can be sidestepped.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Why not use veterinarians? They can access the same drugs (although not human grade, but I doubt that would make any material difference). And vets aren't as-a-whole barred from executing animals when deemed necessary, so perhaps the ethical quandary can be sidestepped.
Click to expand...

Vets are already a profession with an insanely high amount of depression, I don't think we should ask them to do anything else. Unless it cheers them up, which is probably even worse.
 
Thermal said:
Ummm.. you guys actually know that physician assisted suicide is legal in parts of the United States (including my beloved NJ) and Canada, right?
Click to expand...

Of course I know that. Legal Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID is Canada's term) is specifically my argument. No idea why you thought it necessary to tell me this.

Thermal said:
Eta: and that helping a living person to die would be considered "doing harm" by many people?
Click to expand...

All that really matters in this discussion, based on your criticism of "do no harm" as if it has relevance to modern medicine, is the opinions of the medical profession. The religious right seems to enjoy the suffering of people as a general principle and is most frequently the religious wrong.

Thermal said:
And regarding that strange "you and you alone" making this argument, so what? I have no qualms about arguing an unpopular position, and the few posters in this discussion are not the sole arbitrators of righteousness.
Click to expand...

Yup, my bad. It is irrelevant and was wrong to include this.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
No. Unless exigent circumstances. Which has been done but very rarely.

And mostly on flights coming out of Las Vegas.
 
Myriad said:
You don't need even a med school dropout to insert an IV line and inject stuff into it. The problem is getting access to the stuff you need to inject to carry out a humane execution (especially, anesthetics) which can only be legally obtained or legally used by a licensed doctor.

And the Constitution rules out any attempt to force the issue ("since we can't get anesthetics we're just going to inject 50cc of whatever we can freely get access to, like unfiltered pond water or just air, and if you don't like the resulting suffering you could give us anesthetics to use instead").
Click to expand...

Why is legality an issue here? This is the state doing it here so the law can be changed right?
 
This discussion on the Hippocratic Oath, which after all has zero legal validity, assumes that medical associations will be able to debar doctors for doing something that has been mandated by law, and what’s more been specifically ordered in every individual case by courts of law; and that they’ll be able to do that without afterwards getting their pants sued off, and the debarment overturned, and enormous sums of compensation paid out. Either that, or that doctors are one and all such complete paragons, when it comes to this one specific matter of ethics, that at the individual level they’ll never ever budge from that solemn oath, not one of them.

Is that really so, though? The former, that's like some professional association debarring members --- and debarring not from some sorority or club and their attendant parties and dinners and networking, but actually from practicing their profession --- for co-operating with the police in some investigation, or similar. And the latter, that's plain nuts, that assumption of that level of ethics in every individual doctor.

Not impossible, I suppose, either thing, and after all we’ve never heard of doctors doing this thing. But, like I said, seems …not very likely, generally speaking. That was kind of my point, why I brought this up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom