[CUADPUpdate] Lethal Injection - the Hot Topic

[Abraham J. Bonowitz]

Sent *ONLY* to the recipients of CUADPUpdate
Feel Free to Forward

Greetings All,

Today in the US Supreme Court, arguments will be heard in the case of 
Clarence Hill, who was already strapped to a gurney with IV
tubes running into his arms to deliver the lethal injection when he 
received word of his current stay.  Hill had challenged lethal 
injection as a violation of civil rights.   The US Supreme Court, 
however, is looking not at the issue of lethal injection, but at the 
mechanism Hill used to seek judicial relief.  IF the Supreme Court 
finds for Hill, THEN that will open the door to the actual issues 
raised by Hill.

 From an abolitionist perspective, it really does not matter how were 
exterminate our prisoners.  What matters is that we stop  executions 
entirely.  Read more about this perspective 
here:  http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3095

Human Rights Watch issued a new report on lethal injection several 
days ago - check it out here:  http://hrw.org/reports/2006/us0406/

As you may know, CUADP has been collaborating with Dr. Jon Groner to 
raise awareness about physician participation in executions.  Read 
our press releases here:  http://www.cuadp.org/pressrel.html

Dr. Groner has been trying to reach an appropriate party at Human 
Rights Watch (via the letter that follows) to help clarify certain 
issues arising from physician participation in executions.  Have a 
look, and if you know someone at HRW, please forward to them

I trust you find this info helpfulll

Yours in the Struggle,

--abe


___________________________________________________________________________________________

April 24, 2006

Executive Director

Human Rights Watch

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing in response to the report on lethal injection ("So long 
as the die: Lethal injections in the United States") recently 
released by Human Rights Watch.

This report is a thorough account of the vast array of problems 
plaguing lethal injection executions in the United States. I applaud 
Human Rights Watch for the enormous effort researching this report.

I must, however, take issue with the report's recommendations. While 
I enthusiastically support the recommendation to abolish the death 
penalty, I am quite concerned with the other recommendations in the 
statements below:

"Review lethal injection protocols by soliciting input from medical 
and scientific experts, and by holding public hearings and seeking 
public comment"
"If the death penalty is not abolished, suspend all lethal injection 
executions until each state convenes a blue ribbon panel of medical, 
scientific, legal, judicial, and correctional experts authorized to 
review and recommend changes to lethal injection execution protocols 
as necessary to ensure the protocol adopted causes the inmate the 
least possible pain and suffering." [emphasis added]

If the phrase "medical experts" means physicians, then there is an 
ethical problem with these recommendations. The American Medical 
Association's opinion on capital punishment (opinion E-2.06) clearly 
states that:

"Physician participation in an execution includes, but is not limited 
to, the following actions: prescribing or administering tranquilizers 
and other psychotropic agents and medications that are part of the 
execution procedure; monitoring vital signs on site or remotely 
(including monitoring electrocardiograms); attending or observing an 
execution as a physician; and rendering of technical advice regarding 
execution." [emphasis added]

While I do not claim to represent the AMA, I am quite confident that 
holding public hearings in which physicians testify about how to 
perform lethal injection properly, or creating a blue ribbon panel of 
physician experts to "recommend changes" in lethal injection 
procedures, would clearly constitute "rendering technical advice" and 
would be a violation of the AMA ethics guidelines.

To illustrate this point, on March 26, 2006, in a Richmond, Virginia 
newspaper story about lethal injection, I was quoted as saying, 
"Everybody agrees on every side of the execution issue that 5 grams 
of the sodium thiopental properly administered is fatal." The 
following day, I received a phone call from gentleman at the AMA in 
which he admonished me for making this statement, since rendering 
technical advice regarding executions violated AMA ethical guidelines.

It is my contention that the writers of the Human Right Watch report 
were trapped by what has been called the "Hippocratic Paradox," 
meaning that lethal injection is structured so that physicians must 
violate their fundamental ethical principles in order to "help" make 
the execution "humane." Thus, it becomes ethically impossible for 
physicians to become involved in lethal injection in any capacity, 
including endeavoring to make the protocols "better."

It is possible that the only way out of this dilemma is to abolish 
the death penalty, which is, after all, the HRW's strongest recommendation.

Sincerely,

Jonathan I. Groner MD

Associate Professor of Surgery, The OSU College of Medicine and Public Health

Trauma Medical Director

Children's Hospital

700 Children's Drive

Columbus, OH 43205

phone:614-722-3919

fax: 614-722-3903

gronerj at chi.osu.edu

********************


SENT BY:

--abe
abe at cuadp.org