Should EMS be involved in capital punishment?

[crotchitymedic1986]

Good question, but I think everyone is looking at this the wrong way. Dwayne positioned the question with "morality". As far as I know, Islam is the only religion that allows for murder. I think all other religions do not condone murder for any reason. We as humans like to interpret religous rules to meet our desires. If you ask "what would Jesus, Buddha, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, or Billy Graham do ?" The answer is that they would not murder someone for any reason. So if you consider yourself religous/moral, you can not be for capital punishment, abortion, murder, or war.

[emtannie]

Good question, but I think everyone is looking at this the wrong way. Dwayne positioned the question with "morality". As far as I know, Islam is the only religion that allows for murder. I think all other religions do not condone murder for any reason. We as humans like to interpret religous rules to meet our desires. If you ask "what would Jesus, Buddha, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, or Billy Graham do ?" The answer is that they would not murder someone for any reason. So if you consider yourself religous/moral, you can not be for capital punishment, abortion, murder, or war.

I can see where you are coming from on this one, crotchety, and from a religious standpoint, you are right.

However, morality does not necessarily have to be based on religion, as Dwayne stated when he gave the definitions of morals and ethics in one of his later posts:

If we are to accept the definitions of morals as:

mo•ral•i•ty (m -r l -t , mô-). n. pl. mo•ral•i•ties. 1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. ...

www.thefreedictionary.com/morality

…….

if we are to accept the definition of ethics as:

1. ( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.

2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.:medical ethics; Christian ethics.

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/ethics

Doesn't it then remove the decision from the grasp of the individual and place it in the hands of the body responsible for the development of the ethical guidelines of the group, in this case prehospital care providers?

Morality/ethics can be related to a particular group, not necessarily religious. In this case, I think Dwayne’s intent was to discuss this with regard to EMS staff as a group, without religion being involved. The focus is on the obligations of us as EMS workers to do no harm, and protect life, and the potential conflicts if we had to deal with this situation.

Oh, and crotchety, can you please get rid of that “Bed Intruder” video that always shows up on your posts? It slows down loading my screens, and sometimes locks up the page. Thanks.

[Richard B the EMT]

While I have not yet formulated an answer to the morality issue of assisting at an execution, I am glad someone mentioned, in addition to Lethal Injection, other ways, the Gas Chamber, Electrocution, Hanging, Firing Squad, and in some countries, beheading (France doesn't use the guillotine any more, does it?).

[akflightmedic]

State benefits and retirement?

50K per execution??

Sign me up!!

[brentoli]

The true answer to the ordeal would be states to pass specific laws delegating authority to the prison warden or an "executioner" (iv, meds, death certificate) and leave licensed professions out of it.

Of course that brings about the ordeal of a legislature discussing the penalty which many don't want to do, as its a damned if you do damned if you don't topic.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[DwayneEMTP]

State benefits and retirement?

50K per execution??

Sign me up!!

So then, when you have to pull the switch on one of those beautiful red headed children of yours, you will consider that an acceptable loss?

Evidently $50,000 buys more than it used to....

It's easy I think to consider being part of capital punishment when you consider that the mistakes that have been made involve other peoples children only. But more more difficult when you consider that there is every chance that the mistake might involve one of your own...

I am suprised by the overriding thought here of, "Fuck ethics. They were convicted and I'm more than happy to be part of the team that kills them." Had I asked, "Do you think that it's ok to do a 12 lead on a woman with gnarly great boobs just to you can get a peek and play with them a bit?" The entire board would have erupted in, "That's bullshit! That's unethical, immoral, unprofessional behavior!"

But when I ask, "Are you willing to assist in the killing of someone despite the fact that you've joined a proffesion that has sworn to be a pt advocate above all else?" the majorit have said, "Well, sure. The shithead had it coming!" So suddently ethics is out the window then? When a behavior makes you feel good and strong and macho, like assisting in an execution, then ethics are bullshit, but when they make you feel all warm and fuzzy, such as in being offended by sexually perverted behavior they have a strong social value?

Who's going to be the first to step up and explain what appears to be a hypocritical, or simply shallow and ignorant thinking?

Dwayne

Good question, but I think everyone is looking at this the wrong way. Dwayne positioned the question with "morality". As far as I know, Islam is the only religion that allows for murder. I think all other religions do not condone murder for any reason. We as humans like to interpret religous rules to meet our desires. If you ask "what would Jesus, Buddha, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, or Billy Graham do ?" The answer is that they would not murder someone for any reason. So if you consider yourself religous/moral, you can not be for capital punishment, abortion, murder, or war.

I would argue that the majority would not consider state sactioned killing as murder. If you defend yourself, have you then committed murder? You have not, based on the accepted definition of the word.

Murder definition: Intentional homicide (the taking of another person’s life), without legal justification or provocation. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/M/Murder.aspx

I posited the question with morality and ethics, two terms unfortunately often considered synonymous by many. I'm proud of you crotchity! Because if there was ever an issue that illuminates state sanctioned racism, this would be it.

And I agree with you that we can't really have the moral and ethical debate without considering the religious implications, though I hadn't thought of that at first as Annie was kind enough to point out. Humans are complex creatures, rarely making any decision based on one set of criteria and in our country, as in most, religion is rarely separate from those decisions.

Dwayne

We could argue morality and ethics all day. Very subjective topic, and as such, there is no right or wrong answer in that regard.

I disagree on both. The fact that we have not been able to find a correct answer regarding morals certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I believe that it does, and do not disallow it based simply on the fact that I've not been intelligent enough to find it so far.

I believe that you misspoke when you said that we can argue ethics all day. Is assisted suicide unethical at this point in time? It certainly is, as the AMA and many legal bodies say so. And that is the ethical standard. Is it immoral? I don't believe so as long as it's very, very, closely controlled.

I would toss a doctor in with a medic, at least in terms of only being PRESENT at the execution. They did not decide a person must die, but merely are ensuring that a legally mandated sentence has been carried out.

I could be wrong, but that appears to be an oxymoron to me. You aren't responsible for the execution, but the execution will not occur without you there, so if you are there then the execution must be in at least part, upon your shoulders, right? (I'm guessing it goes without saying, but I will say it anyway just so I feel better that, "Well, if I'm not there, somebody else will be!" is not a logical argument, not one in keeping with the spirit of the intended debate in this thread.)

...I agree that you need to be as close to 100% certain as possible of the guilt of someone in order to put them to death.

Continuing tangent.. (My thanks to Lone Star for his comment on this being out of place and trying to keep the thread valid and on track, but it's just too juicy to pass up.)

Close? Really? Do you have children? Grand children? Neices or nephews? Would you consider their innocent deaths acceptable losses for the continuation of a practice that is many times more expensive than a term of life in prison, and creates irrevocatble consequences? Really?

You and a couple of other seem to feel that as we now have DNA testing and TV show like investigative techniques (that, by the way are not employed on all classes of society) that the chance of error in false convictions is zero. A quick Google search will show you the error of this thinking. The problem is that, though capital punishment has been scientifically proved to have no value as a deterent if just feels so fucking good, so God damned just that folks love it and are willing to look past their intellect and jump on board for strictly emotional reasons. And they don't have to pay for the mistakes made. The mistakes are kept quiet, rarely if ever in the news, so those wanting to participate get to feel heroic without ever being responsible for their decisions...that is where it sticks in my craw.

Anyway, good discussion I think! Fun anyway... :-)

Dwayne

[island emt]

Dwayne: To me it's not so much a question of ethics or morality as it is doing a job that needs to be done.

While the oath we take is to do no further harm, it does not address this situation adequately.

To take an example from the pro-life camp, They feel that medical professionals who do abortions are criminals and as such there are those that believe it's OK to murder them in the name of the unborn. Talk about a contradiction of ethics or morals.

Now lets look at the much revered/vilified Dr Jack Kevorkian and the issues of a patients rights to end their suffering from a terminal disease process.

Do you believe that if a Pt has a non reversible condition which will eventually lead to a long painful suffering death, should they have the option of Dr assisted death. I for one am a firm believer in allowing this to take place. Why should a byzantine code of ethics not permit us to relieve suffering?

Spend a little time with a Hospice unit and see how your feelings change on this issue after no amount of pain meds will help bring relief to excruciating pain & suffering.

When I see a criminal thats violated the laws of the land in a serious enough manner to receive the death penalty, then he is a waste of societies time and effort to rehabilitate. Take a look at who are the inmates on death row, mass murders, child rapists/ murderers, cop killers, the worst of the worst.

How about the recent case of two lifelong career criminals that invaded a home in Ct. and beat the husband unconscious with a baseball bat then tied up his wife and two daughters. After forcing the wife to go to a bank and withdraw cash, they beat and raped her and her 11 year old daughter and then doused them all with gasoline and set them on fire. One has already received the death penalty and the second most likely will also.

Could you take part in their death sentence?

I know I could without a second though about violating my principles.

Is this counter to my teachings and beliefs? No I don't think it is.

To answer the original question about NAEMT: who do they think they are? They are not a licensing agency or even a recognized agent of the system. They are a lobbying group with delusions of grandeur.

[HERBIE1]

If we go strictly by definitions, ethics and morals have nothing to do with participating in a capital punishment execution, as long as it is a possible sentence for a crime. It is not hypocritical to participate in such a process. You are NOT deciding the legality of capital punishment, and unless you are on the jury, you are NOT the one who decides the sentence of the criminal. The person's fate has already been determined by law.

As a matter of fact, if you are picked for a jury in a capital case, and the death sentence is a potential outcome, one of the things a lawyer asks when they are enpaneling the jury is if the accused is found guilty, would you be able to sentence them to death? If you say no- based on moral or religious grounds, you WILL be excused.

[DwayneEMTP]

...While the oath we take is to do no further harm, it does not address this situation adequately.

See, I don't get this. You claim that we take an oath to do no harm, yet why have you placed the IV in the persons arm? Is it somehow to their benefit that you've done so? Are you being this persons advocate by doing so?

...Now lets look at the much revered/vilified Dr Jack Kevorkian and the issues of a patients rights to end their suffering from a terminal disease process.

This is a good example I think. If its proved to be unethical for him to end a life at a pts request, is it also then immoral, and if its unethical, but not immoral, should he feel obligated to stand on his morals and damn his ethics? That I can truly see as a personal decision. Are you then saying that an EMTs role in capital punishment is so morally certain that the ethics should be ignored? On what grounds do you find the moral weight you seem to give to capital punishment? Where is it's over riding moral goodness?

...When I see a criminal thats violated the laws of the land in a serious enough manner to receive the death penalty, then he is a waste of societies time and effort to rehabilitate.

Prison is about punishment, not rehabilitation, you shouldn't confuse the two.

...Take a look at who are the inmates on death row, mass murders, child rapists/ murderers, cop killers, the worst of the worst.

I don't think that I've made the argument that there aren't some evil sons of bitches on death row, but even if I had I don't really see where that changes that the argument of morals and ethics when EMS is involved in their execution.

...To answer the original question about NAEMT: who do they think they are? They are not a licensing agency or even a recognized agent of the system. They are a lobbying group with delusions of grandeur.

Is that also your feeling about the AMA then?

...If we go strictly by definitions, ethics and morals have nothing to do with participating in a capital punishment execution, as long as it is a possible sentence for a crime. It is not hypocritical to participate in such a process.

I don't understand this at all. Please don't translate "I don't understand" to "It's so stupid I just don't get it" as that is not my feeling at all. I have respect for your opinions, and even agree with some of them, but I'm truly lost here and would be grateful if you could get into more depth so I can more easily explain why you're wrong.. :-)

...As a matter of fact, if you are picked for a jury in a capital case, and the death sentence is a potential outcome, one of the things a lawyer asks when they are enpaneling the jury is if the accused is found guilty, would you be able to sentence them to death? If you say no- based on moral or religious grounds, you WILL be excused.

At this point in our captial punishment history I would in fact refuse to participate in a capital sentencing. Not because of religious faith, but based on my moral certainty that possibly killing innocent people on purpose or accident is an evil fucking thing to do, regardless of the precautions taken.

Thanks for your thoughts all...

Dwayne

[HERBIE1]

I don't understand this at all. Please don't translate "I don't understand" to "It's so stupid I just don't get it" as that is not my feeling at all. I have respect for your opinions, and even agree with some of them, but I'm truly lost here and would be grateful if you could get into more depth so I can more easily explain why you're wrong.. :-)

The definitions of morals and ethics have already been posted, so I won't retread that. The point is, these are PERSONAL things. If part of your job is to insert an IV into an inmate so that lethal drugs can be administered, then you have 2 choices- do your job, or look for work elsewhere. I assume you would already know that this is a possible part of your job when you are hired, so if you object to capital punishment based on personal beliefs, you should not be taking that job. If this suddenly becomes part of your job description and you have a problem with this- then you are indeed faced with a dilemma- object to this new duty, or accept it. Again- you are not deciding the punishment for this person, or whether or not they are guilty of their crime.

At this point in our captial punishment history I would in fact refuse to participate in a capital sentencing. Not because of religious faith, but based on my moral certainty that possibly killing innocent people on purpose or accident is an evil fucking thing to do, regardless of the precautions taken.

Thanks for your thoughts all...

Dwayne

NOTHING is certain in this world. I agree that putting an innocent person to death is unacceptable. So, the question becomes- can we prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have the right person sitting in that chair or on that gurney? We are dealing with a human element, which means NOTHING is perfect. The standards used in court are proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if anyone on that jury believes there is any possibilty the accused did NOT commit the crime, they should not convict. Another question- what is the appropriate punishment for someone who commits premeditated murder? For many, if someone intentionally takes a human life, then 3 hots and a cot on the public dime, til you die is NOT an acceptable punishment. As it stands, some states DO allow for capital punishment, but are reluctant to actually carry out the sentence.

Like I said, put a moratorium on older cases, but from this day forward use every possible tool to verify guilt.

In many cases, the question in a murder trial isn't whether or not the person committed the crime, but WHY they did it. Often times the defense suggests there are extenuating circumstances that should allow for leniency for their client. They were abused as a child, they are insane, it was a crime of passion, etc. So in the cases where the evidence is irrefutable, I have NO problem "pulling the trigger" on these people, so to speak. I see too many cases of people who have been convicted of taking another life serving time and being released back into the public.If even one of these folks repeats their crime, it's one too many in my book. That means the system has failed,and to me that's just as unacceptable as putting an innocent man to death.

Recently I read about a guy who murdered his girlfriend, served 15 years of a 30 year sentence due to 1 for one good behavior time off, and will soon be released. By my estimation, that is wrong on every conceivable level. Has justice been served to the victim or their family?