Not really as far as I know. In the US anyway, for the most part professional licensure is controlled by the government but the standards for licensure are more or less determined by the professional organizations themselves. The government just adopts those standards, sometimes with exceptions or additions. And its almost entirely up to the state not the national organization.
I can only speak to Engineering and to a lesser extent architects but....I could be censured by the ASCE but they can't take my license away. That would be up to the state where I have my license. Someone would have to file a complaint and the board in that state would review my case and could take my license to practice engineering in that stat.
The closest thing in my profession is the group trying to get the various professional organizations to say its unethical to design prisons. They can do that but it would not prevent someone from getting a license or keeping there license unless the state board, which is a government body, also adopted that policy.
Yes, it’s the state that issues licences for doctors, not AMA, as I found out in the course of this thread.
What’s odd in this case, is that it is a matter of ethics, not technical standards. That’s weird right there, given that this isn't a matter of straightforward things like probity and honesty and conscientiousness etc, and given those particular ethics aren’t ironclad, not by a long shot. (That is, it might be argued, not necessarily conclusively, but plausibly certainly, that given that the execution is going to happen in any case, the doctor by lending his expertise can ensure less pain and a more humane death, so in a way analogous to assisting at euthanasia, as far as the principle of it. …To be clear, I’m not arguing that, but I’m saying some doctor might plausibly argue that and act accordingly, and who’s to say his ethics and his ethical conclusions are any less valid than the other thing? There’s no reason to imagine that the Hippopotamus oath, as TragicMonkey --- who else?! --- calls it, should be the last word on medical ethics, after all.) That’s very different than, for instance, some doctor not treating a patient who can’t pay --- not that that argument is ironclad either, there’s two sides to that as well I suppose, but at least the ethics of it are more straightforward than here.
That’s not to disagree with you, but to add to what you’d said. Absolutely, that proposal you mention, about the ethics of designing prisons, that’s a close equivalent, agreed.
-----
As far as the prisons thing, what’s that like? Most people agree? Some agree and some disagree? Strong opinions either way, or do most people not care one way or the other? ...What would be completely relevant, and very interesting, is if you’ve any idea at all about the legal validity of such a proposal. If this proposal you mention has been contested legally, and examined in a court of law, then whatever the judgment was --- whether holding it legally valid, or not, either way --- would probably apply to this AMA thing as well. I mean it does seem like a direct equivalent.
. I don't disagree with it, really, it's just a bit roundabout.