In fact, we're worse than he, who only tries to ease the executions, which we, as voters who favor or ignore these sadistic slow motion murders, have ordered.
I had the opportunity to witness several executions in the past. They were performed by lethal injection. I think that Dr. Musso has a reasonable perspective on this matter. Someone needs to be there to ensure that the lethal injection process is conducted as smoothly as possible. He is not directly participating in the execution but he is available to provide professional observation and perhaps ensure for less distress for the condemned individual.
The courts have made the decision to put the man on the gurney. It is not the doctor who is deeming who should live and who should die. That is the spirit of what the Hippocratic Oath prohibits. But many who criticized the physician involved in the execution process turn around and openly support euthanasia which also involves a physician.
It is my hope that activists stop harassing Carlos Musso. He seems like a decent man.
The courts have made the decision to put the man on the gurney. It is not the doctor who is deeming who should live and who should die. That is the spirit of what the Hippocratic Oath prohibits. But many who criticized the physician involved in the execution process turn around and openly support euthanasia which also involves a physician.
It is my hope that activists stop harassing Carlos Musso. He seems like a decent man.
1
"Perception is reality," said Dr. Musso. What? That's crazy talk. And evil. May God have mercy on all of our souls for this barbaric practice.
1
I believe that there are crimes for which I cannot say that the death penalty is not appropriate. I also believe that it is a very hard thing to be involved with and that although I would find it hard to do (very hard), I cannot say that I would not participate to help make it easier on the person to die. Until we decide it cannot be done, it is a task that has to be addressed. I feel sorry for those that must have to accept the burden. I have a hard time condemning them. I would find it very hard on me.
Willfull blindness, as well as selective hearing, are well documented. Commodifying punishment, including killing another human being for revenge, which is generally rationalized, is not new.And surely not in a culture which enabled, defended, and paid for torture to be carried out most recently and which president elect Trump supports. And surely not in
a divided country - it's ordinary people as well as a range of policy makers and professional politicians- which has yet to acknowledge its " addiction" to discrimination, racism, bigotry and the daily creation and sustaining of socially constructed stigmatized, marginalized and dehumanized, "the other." This targeted "actor," in this narrative, did not write this complex, multi-dimensional script, with its many implications and outcomes for individuals, systems, values and norms. He merely performs what WE enable...whatever reaction each of has to what is described. Consider, while he, physician (role) and person, helped supply a tool to kill with,
witnesses an institutional killing- whatever it's legal underpinning, and signs a death certificate...one adjudicated prisoner at a time. And we, you and me, with our silences, complacencies, ideological supported cop-outs enable the deaths of innocents, daily, throughout the world as well as the shameless violations of so many, many fellow human beings.
a divided country - it's ordinary people as well as a range of policy makers and professional politicians- which has yet to acknowledge its " addiction" to discrimination, racism, bigotry and the daily creation and sustaining of socially constructed stigmatized, marginalized and dehumanized, "the other." This targeted "actor," in this narrative, did not write this complex, multi-dimensional script, with its many implications and outcomes for individuals, systems, values and norms. He merely performs what WE enable...whatever reaction each of has to what is described. Consider, while he, physician (role) and person, helped supply a tool to kill with,
witnesses an institutional killing- whatever it's legal underpinning, and signs a death certificate...one adjudicated prisoner at a time. And we, you and me, with our silences, complacencies, ideological supported cop-outs enable the deaths of innocents, daily, throughout the world as well as the shameless violations of so many, many fellow human beings.
2
When I read the headline "Death Row Doctor", I assumed this piece would profile Donald Trump's nominee for Secretary of Health, Representative/Dr. Tom Price. Instead it was about Dr. Musso. Instead I got:
"Dr. Musso . . . is adamant that as long as the United States conducts executions, doctors should be involved. He argues that the involvement of doctors and their ability to ensure what he calls 'end of life comfort measures' helps keep our capital punishment system as humane as possible."
Little did I suspect that this feature would contain a sneak preview of the GOP's alternative to the Affordable Care Act--the alternative that will get the government out of healthcare in general, but which will doubtlessly encourage insurers to focus on increased demand for "end of life comfort measures"--or will even such measures be deemed too humane for the enthusiastically Malthusian and entrepreneurial Dr. Price?
"Dr. Musso . . . is adamant that as long as the United States conducts executions, doctors should be involved. He argues that the involvement of doctors and their ability to ensure what he calls 'end of life comfort measures' helps keep our capital punishment system as humane as possible."
Little did I suspect that this feature would contain a sneak preview of the GOP's alternative to the Affordable Care Act--the alternative that will get the government out of healthcare in general, but which will doubtlessly encourage insurers to focus on increased demand for "end of life comfort measures"--or will even such measures be deemed too humane for the enthusiastically Malthusian and entrepreneurial Dr. Price?
1
The problem is the idea of "humane" killing. There is nothing humane about taking a life, that is why these individuals are being put to death. Their victims certainly had no chance at a humane death, why does society worry about making executions clean, medicinal, and with as little emotional trauma as possible.
These people are going to die. There is really no merciful way to execute someone. Go back to firing squads. Use the army or national guard (volunteers only), not the prison guards to do this.
Yes, I believe in the death penalty. As a woman, I have had to live my life avoiding dangerous or questionable activities, even something as simple as walking down the street alone after dark.
These people are going to die. There is really no merciful way to execute someone. Go back to firing squads. Use the army or national guard (volunteers only), not the prison guards to do this.
Yes, I believe in the death penalty. As a woman, I have had to live my life avoiding dangerous or questionable activities, even something as simple as walking down the street alone after dark.
Your last sentence makes your position seem some kind of revenge for your constricted life. That's ignoble and wrong. You don't get to kill people over it. That said, you must know that an innocent person could indeed be killed through capital punishment. And you seem fine with that, which is a murder itself. A shrug is not an adequate answer to that problem.
Let's make sure we understand what "participation" means. Musso is there to certify the death and sign the death certificate (the cause of death, incidentally, is always listed as "homicide"). He doesn't run the IV or turn on the chemicals. These things are done by EMT's and other non-licensed personnel. Licensed MD's and Nurses cannot and do not actually participate in the killing itself, so he's pretty much there as a bystander.
I have mixed feelings about the clip. On the one hand, he doesn't seem Kervorkian-like in his zeal to participate. If Georgia is going to carry these things out, he seems to want to be on hand to ensure it goes down as professionally as possible. On the other hand, Georgia law requires two physicians be present to carry out an execution. So if they couldn't find a licensed physician to participate...
I have mixed feelings about the clip. On the one hand, he doesn't seem Kervorkian-like in his zeal to participate. If Georgia is going to carry these things out, he seems to want to be on hand to ensure it goes down as professionally as possible. On the other hand, Georgia law requires two physicians be present to carry out an execution. So if they couldn't find a licensed physician to participate...
1
If he's being paid for his contribution to the killing, he is not a "bystander".
1
There is only one way I could begin to consider that Dr. Musso is not engaging in a baneful case of rationalization is if he were to say that his work was pro bono or that he donated all the proceeds from his participation in executions to a worthy charity. Since I didn't hear him say anything even close, I will regard him as huge hypocrite for profiting off something he claims goes against his principles.
3
He does donate the money he receives. To a children's charity.
1
I am personally opposed to capital punishment although I believe that some criminals in some circumstances probably deserve to die for their crimes. My reason has to do with dysfunctions in the criminal justice system that allow some innocent people to be convicted. A whole lot of work needs to be done on this problem before I feel easy with an irreversible punishment that cannot to some extent be corrected.
Having said that I'm glad there are individuals like this doctor involved in the process who do their utmost to see that it is not painful and accomplished in a professional manner. I think his oath to do no harm is fulfilled by participating in this way. If he didn't take part someone else would and possibly not perform quite as well.
The issue in this editorial, however, is an attempt to call Dr. Musso bad names and to assert that he has violated his oath. This is bullying, name-calling, demonizing, marginalizing and stigmatizing behavior.
Often, I have noticed, that people who feel that capital punishment is morally wrong have no qualms about doctor-assisted suicide, perhaps even suicide generally and late-term abortion.
The issue is not killing of a human being for them. It's killing for reasons that please them.
Assisted suicides seem humane, although pulling the plug on a "locked-in" patient who wants to live but is unable to express that may be horrifying. Late term abortions imply "free choice" for the mother, who otherwise would be a "victim."
Having said that I'm glad there are individuals like this doctor involved in the process who do their utmost to see that it is not painful and accomplished in a professional manner. I think his oath to do no harm is fulfilled by participating in this way. If he didn't take part someone else would and possibly not perform quite as well.
The issue in this editorial, however, is an attempt to call Dr. Musso bad names and to assert that he has violated his oath. This is bullying, name-calling, demonizing, marginalizing and stigmatizing behavior.
Often, I have noticed, that people who feel that capital punishment is morally wrong have no qualms about doctor-assisted suicide, perhaps even suicide generally and late-term abortion.
The issue is not killing of a human being for them. It's killing for reasons that please them.
Assisted suicides seem humane, although pulling the plug on a "locked-in" patient who wants to live but is unable to express that may be horrifying. Late term abortions imply "free choice" for the mother, who otherwise would be a "victim."
1
I was amazed by the last line in this article. "We all justify the flawed institutions in which we participate"-- what? I don't particularly justify the use of part-time labor and exploitation in other ways in the institution in which I participate, although I do still participate in it and do not pull the president's beard. But we don't kill people here. How can that be ignored to make a facile and absurd equivalence?
2
The USA is notorious as a country which has one of the highest rates of executions. On a per capita basis it is possibly more than China and North Korea.
1
The most humane capital punishment (not that I support it in any form) is the sudden bullet in the back of the head with no warning, no lengthy preparations, in the Chinese or Russian-style. All the rest is just hypocrisy and an unnecessary "circus show" that just causes unthinkable psychological horror to the victim who must endure the dragged-out, complex process that we have in the USA.
2
I'm a physician and I say unequivocally that this man should be banned from practicing medicine. He should have lost his physician privileges when he took part in the killing of another human being. He is a stain on our profession. He is a hypocrite and should be ashamed of himself.
3
Wow... you should read "better... a surgeons notes on performance".
Executions are not going to stop in this country anytime soon. Given that fact it is wrong ...even stupid... not to have a medical professional there to make sure the execution is done as humanely as possible. Would you rather have incompetent people with no medical knowledge supervising executions??? As Ms. Knapp should know Physician-assisted suicide is already legal in Oregon with other states considering the same legislation. Physician-assisted suicide involves a doctor "knowingly and intentionally providing a person with the knowledge or means or both required to commit suicide, including counseling about lethal doses of drugs, prescribing such lethal doses or supplying the drugs. That goes a lot further than supervising an execution. These facts makes this column seem very hypocritical. You can't have it both ways.
Would you rather executions be carried out by amateurs? Lethal injection without medical expertise is like a blind firing squad: the condemned will die eventually, but probably not in quick or humane fashion. I imagine you would rather there are no executions anymore, but that would condemn death row inmates to a slow execution by decades of hopeless imprisonment, lovelessly warehoused until their biological end. For those who have been judged too dangerous and evil to ever walk free, there are no good ends, only less bad ones.
What an amazing capture of the ethical dilemmas involved in the medicalization of capital punishment. I am a nurse, and I vehemently oppose capital punishment, both on moral grounds (only God gets to decide how someone dies), and on practical grounds: capital punishment is much more expensive than life in prison when you factor in all of the appeals.
Yet, for a while, there were so many stories of executions botched simply because an IV was placed incorrectly. As an RN with ICU and Pre-Hospital experience, I can place an IV on someone in nearly every case. And when I can't, I have tools to establish vascular access thru a bone in the leg (it hurts, but it is incredibly brief, like having a tooth pulled).
I won't comment on the drugs used, other than to say if we can humanely put down our pets with drugs, why don't we do so with people?
All that said...if asked to participate in an execution, I would have to think long and hard, as Dr. Musso has obviously done, about how or even if, it was possible to justify my use of my specialized skills to facilitate something that I oppose. The only justification I can possibly see is in making the inmate's last moments more comfortable, rather than torture.
Yet, for a while, there were so many stories of executions botched simply because an IV was placed incorrectly. As an RN with ICU and Pre-Hospital experience, I can place an IV on someone in nearly every case. And when I can't, I have tools to establish vascular access thru a bone in the leg (it hurts, but it is incredibly brief, like having a tooth pulled).
I won't comment on the drugs used, other than to say if we can humanely put down our pets with drugs, why don't we do so with people?
All that said...if asked to participate in an execution, I would have to think long and hard, as Dr. Musso has obviously done, about how or even if, it was possible to justify my use of my specialized skills to facilitate something that I oppose. The only justification I can possibly see is in making the inmate's last moments more comfortable, rather than torture.
There are plenty of people on Death Row because they belong there for the horrific crimes they have committed. They have more than earned their relatively painless and quick deaths on that gurney. Are there miscarriages of justice? Yes. Are they horrible? Yes. Do the innocent get confused with the guilty? Yes. Should everything possible be done to prevent that? Of course. But try to remember a bit of sympathy for the victims of the guilty. And the loved ones who have to live through that nightmare. The first good nights sleep I got in years was the night after my Grandmothers murderer was put down like the rabid dog he was.
5
So it's OK with you that the occasional innocent person is executed because they are "confused with the guilty"? You talk about the loved ones of the victims having to live through that nightmare... can you imagine what it would be like to watch the march of the justice system as it deals with an innocent defendant from the erroneous arrest, to the execution gurney, thinking all the while that surely someone will discover the error? As someone who has suffered the devastating loss of your grandmother to murder you seem to me pretty casual about acknowledging that state sanctioned murders of innocent victims happen.
So what's the number here? Is it OK if two or three erroneous executions happen? When does it become too many? 10? 100? My answer is 1 is too many, and therefore capital punishment carries an unacceptable (and unconstitutional) risk of murdering innocent people. We should join the rest of the civilized world and get rid of it.
So what's the number here? Is it OK if two or three erroneous executions happen? When does it become too many? 10? 100? My answer is 1 is too many, and therefore capital punishment carries an unacceptable (and unconstitutional) risk of murdering innocent people. We should join the rest of the civilized world and get rid of it.
4
@T. Libby
I regret your tragedy, but for my part, I believe it is up to each of us to deal with the sadness and anger in our lives, the injustice, cruelty, and affronts to our morality and dignity. That is our path in life, no matter what.
We do not get to kill those who cause us pain. Never.
I am not sure in what part this doctor actively participates. Does he only declare the prisoners death? Does push the plungers? Certainly if I have a family member who is to be executed, I wouldn't was him or her brought back for a second try. Doctors sign death certificates all of the time. It sounds like he is involved in getting the medicine for the execution. at the very least. The article makes it seem as just another part of a medical practice But it isn't. That's no different that providing the rope, bullets for the rifle squad, or checking to make sure there is enough power to the chair. Some drug companies say the will no longer provide drugs for executions. The do not swear to "do no harm." Doctors do.
4
If there is resistance to physician assisted suicide, why is there acceptance of physician assistance to execution.
The former is asked by an individual and the latter by an element of the justice system.
Both decisions might be flawed.
Ending the life of a misguided individual or a wrongly convicted individual are equally "harmful"
Do no harm.
The former is asked by an individual and the latter by an element of the justice system.
Both decisions might be flawed.
Ending the life of a misguided individual or a wrongly convicted individual are equally "harmful"
Do no harm.
7
ahenryr,
I think you may misunderstand physician-assisted suicide. It is not granted for people who want to die because they are depressed about life but otherwise physically healthy.
Physician assisted suicide is for people in the terminal stage of a debilitating, and often terribly painful disease, and who are expected to die within 6 months despite all efforts to the contrary. These people are choosing to cut short their life to spare them selves unnecessary pain and suffering.
Additionally, in these cases, the doctor only writes the prescription for the lethal dose of drugs--the patient MUST be able to self-administer them.
I think you may misunderstand physician-assisted suicide. It is not granted for people who want to die because they are depressed about life but otherwise physically healthy.
Physician assisted suicide is for people in the terminal stage of a debilitating, and often terribly painful disease, and who are expected to die within 6 months despite all efforts to the contrary. These people are choosing to cut short their life to spare them selves unnecessary pain and suffering.
Additionally, in these cases, the doctor only writes the prescription for the lethal dose of drugs--the patient MUST be able to self-administer them.
Pro-lifers condemn capital punishment as well as physician-prescribed death as well as (your favorite hot-button no doubt) abortion. Life from womb to tomb -- all done naturally. Allow me to throw in my personal abhorrence to drone strikes and War in general. And I don't live in CA nor NY! Surprise.
1
The same people crying about Doctors executing heinous criminals say nothing about the millions of innocent babies aborted every year.
4
No, Steve, you're quite wrong about that. Killing is killing is killing, and I suspect there are many like me who abhor killing unborn babies as well as, in your words, heinous criminals. If you are truly interested in saving the lives of babies, I believe the most efficacious stance is to oppose all killings by government, including by those government agents we train to kill on our behalf and praise as "our brave troops." If you are only against some killing, I'm afraid I question your devotion to life.
Babies are not aborted, fetuses are.
Fetuses are babies in their, hopefully, loving mothers' wombs.
I keep hearing over and over your Presidents boasting that America is the greatest democracy on earth. However, I think any democracy that allows the state to take a human life cannot be truly great.
The death penalty no longer exists in the democracy just north of your border. And we do not have the equivalent of a Donald Trump leading our democracy.
I am not sure what makes any democracy the greatest, but right now I will take ours over yours, any day.
The death penalty no longer exists in the democracy just north of your border. And we do not have the equivalent of a Donald Trump leading our democracy.
I am not sure what makes any democracy the greatest, but right now I will take ours over yours, any day.
12
Why NOT have a Doctor Present? It's the humane thing to do!
I think we are over thinking this. The death penalty is the highest form of punishment our government dispenses. It is a necessary tool- reserved for those who've committed the most atrocious and heinous acts against our civil society. The death penalty should serve as message we will answer the call of justice to the most vile members of our society. That we will end the life of the condemned with compassion and humility- and in a way which does not reflect or simulate the horror and fear the condemned may have afflicted upon others. This is what separates us from the savages.
I think we are over thinking this. The death penalty is the highest form of punishment our government dispenses. It is a necessary tool- reserved for those who've committed the most atrocious and heinous acts against our civil society. The death penalty should serve as message we will answer the call of justice to the most vile members of our society. That we will end the life of the condemned with compassion and humility- and in a way which does not reflect or simulate the horror and fear the condemned may have afflicted upon others. This is what separates us from the savages.
6
No one is *just* an “ordinary man” and nothing more.
1
First, she says how do doctors "rationalize" their involvement. A better way to introduce the topic is, how do they respond to those who think they are doing something wrong? "Rationalize" suggests the behaviour is wrongful even before we are told why.
Same thing regarding the supposed fact that most developed countries have abandoned capital punishment. Would you call the Caribbean developed? I would. Most of it sanctions the penalty. So does Japan. India too. Turkey has announced it will soon be re-instated. If the person who was just arrested for murdering and wounding patrons of the nighclub is convicted, I'd say he deserves the death penalty.
She says the doctor is "consumed" by his current project. Oh come on, isn't the writer consumed by her current project of making the film? We are all consumed by what we do if we take it seriously.
Finally, if the law requires doctors to be there, I don't see how anyone can say it isn't part of medicine. The state has that (final) right, not the medical associations.
There is a case to be made that physicians should not choose to participate in executions but it can be done by fairly explaining the merits and eschewing the judgmental tone of this article.
Same thing regarding the supposed fact that most developed countries have abandoned capital punishment. Would you call the Caribbean developed? I would. Most of it sanctions the penalty. So does Japan. India too. Turkey has announced it will soon be re-instated. If the person who was just arrested for murdering and wounding patrons of the nighclub is convicted, I'd say he deserves the death penalty.
She says the doctor is "consumed" by his current project. Oh come on, isn't the writer consumed by her current project of making the film? We are all consumed by what we do if we take it seriously.
Finally, if the law requires doctors to be there, I don't see how anyone can say it isn't part of medicine. The state has that (final) right, not the medical associations.
There is a case to be made that physicians should not choose to participate in executions but it can be done by fairly explaining the merits and eschewing the judgmental tone of this article.
Many states now allow doctors to help put down Grandma like an old dog; the doctors in those cases are much more "complicit" than a doctor who works directly with the state to help carry out a lawful sentence. The assisted-suicide laws directly undercut any arguments against capital punishment and absolutely destroy the sophistry about a doctor's involvement in executions.
3
"He argues that the involvement of doctors ... helps keep our capital punishment system as humane as possible." The least humane thing about capital punishment is that the convicted person knows he's going to die at a certain time in a certain place; most of us mercifully don't have to face that kind of certainty regarding our end.
3
There are some crimes so horrible that you can't help feel glad that justice was served... and I'm sure you agree. My reservations are that an innocent man may be unjustly executed. That the system can fail. Still I cannot see certain individuals, certain crimes going without the ultimate sentence of death. On the flip side will these protesters try to stop willful Euthanasia? There too is something I advocate. However in both cases there should be dignity for the recipient. That is the extent of my morality on the subject.
If "do no harm" is a core pillar of medicine, why do so many doctors participate in abortions and assisted suicides ? These are obviously intentional killings of human beings.
The alternative to the death penalty our society has determined is appropriate is a sentence of "life without the possibility of parole." The equivalent of a life sentence is a "sentence of death by prison."
If tending to the condemned to ease their suffering while facing a death sentence violates an oath to "do no harm," prolonging a life suffering through a sentence of death by prison could be argued as violating that same oath.
If tending to the condemned to ease their suffering while facing a death sentence violates an oath to "do no harm," prolonging a life suffering through a sentence of death by prison could be argued as violating that same oath.
3
Pure sophistry
Reading comments in american media is very interesting to me: it seems that most people who agree with death penalty are against abortion.
5
Killing people is barbaric, and as the doctor says, killing people is something that citizens have decided is the correct path. That this doctor assists in doing so does not make him part of that evil. He would only be part of that evil if he voted to support the death penalty. If I were to be executed, or if a family member were to be executed, I would by all means want a doctor there. I want a doctor there even though I don't know any of the people on Georgia's death row. Providing a doctor is the right thing to do. Killing people is not.
5
"So how do the physicians who take part in the American institution of capital punishment rationalize their involvement?"
Good question. A better one is, "Why are governments--federal, state, local--where executions take place allowed by the citizens of those governments to kill? And the same question could be asked of the federal government in relation to its killings overseas, many of which are outright murders when the victims aren't shooting at their killers.
Essentially, governments are killing machines and killing is what they do best. Of course governments don't actually do the killing, rather agents of the government carry out the atrocities. Those agents are not morally exonerated from their evil because they were ordered to kill. Nor are the taxpayers who finance the killings morally immunized because they only participated indirectly. Nor the citizens in general who do not try to stop the killing.
Americans are violent, immoral people. Their government agents' killings certainly exceed the slaughter of human lives of all other governments of the past 100 years except those of a few satanic dictators, and certainly more than any government regarded as democratic. And America's citizens are generally more culpable than the inhabitants of those rapacious dictator states because Americans are responsible for the acts of their government agents. SCOTUS has asserted, and it cannot be denied, that the sovereign authority of the US resides in the "People."
Good question. A better one is, "Why are governments--federal, state, local--where executions take place allowed by the citizens of those governments to kill? And the same question could be asked of the federal government in relation to its killings overseas, many of which are outright murders when the victims aren't shooting at their killers.
Essentially, governments are killing machines and killing is what they do best. Of course governments don't actually do the killing, rather agents of the government carry out the atrocities. Those agents are not morally exonerated from their evil because they were ordered to kill. Nor are the taxpayers who finance the killings morally immunized because they only participated indirectly. Nor the citizens in general who do not try to stop the killing.
Americans are violent, immoral people. Their government agents' killings certainly exceed the slaughter of human lives of all other governments of the past 100 years except those of a few satanic dictators, and certainly more than any government regarded as democratic. And America's citizens are generally more culpable than the inhabitants of those rapacious dictator states because Americans are responsible for the acts of their government agents. SCOTUS has asserted, and it cannot be denied, that the sovereign authority of the US resides in the "People."
3
Readers who believe that death is always harm might change their tune had they watched themselves deteriorate from a functional human being into a chronic-pain-engorged vegetative state. Like it or not, this story is philosophically connected to that of physician-assisted suicide, and the idea that sometimes death is preferable to ongoing degraded life. We are prone in this society to knee-jerk from Judeo-Christian ethics, rather than from religiosity-free scientific actions and those encompassing the right to control our own bodies, including the right to terminate their metabolic processes.
The inventor of the guillotine, a French physician named Joseph-Ignace Guillotin, was a staunch opponent of the death penalty who created a method of execution which was far less tortuous than the existing methods. It sounds like there is a parallel here.
Physician assisted suicide has significant political support from the left. Should this also be banned and/or charactered as murder?
1
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."Upton Sinclair, Jr
Dr. Musso is well spoken, educated, by all appearances is a respectable citizen and he is intelligent enough to recognize the moral and ethical failings of capital punishment. He has made a choice. He realizes too much material benefit from his company that services prisons and the state of Georgia to take the chance on diminishing it for the sake of a moral position. These people did something horrible and, society (not Dr. Musso) decided they need to die. It's the down side of the job. You know, kind of like having to look into the sun when you chase a fly ball if your a baseball player.
Dr. Musso is well spoken, educated, by all appearances is a respectable citizen and he is intelligent enough to recognize the moral and ethical failings of capital punishment. He has made a choice. He realizes too much material benefit from his company that services prisons and the state of Georgia to take the chance on diminishing it for the sake of a moral position. These people did something horrible and, society (not Dr. Musso) decided they need to die. It's the down side of the job. You know, kind of like having to look into the sun when you chase a fly ball if your a baseball player.
Let us, try, to remember the victims.
The people being executed are not the victims.
I am continually amazed at the money and effort exerted to defend terrible people. We need to streamline our death penalty and make it faster.
These are the worst of the worst. There people would kill us, and our families, in a blink of an eye. We have a fundamental right to protect ourselves, our family and our society.
The people being executed are not the victims.
I am continually amazed at the money and effort exerted to defend terrible people. We need to streamline our death penalty and make it faster.
These are the worst of the worst. There people would kill us, and our families, in a blink of an eye. We have a fundamental right to protect ourselves, our family and our society.
1
The execution of proven killers is a societal good. The harm is done when killers are allowed to live long lives while their victims, sometimes, are forgotten.
1
Over 15,000 murders last year, yet only 30 people got the death penalty. Seems that even the pro-death-penalty people rarely use it.
It is completely hypocritical of the religious right to condemn abortion but support the death penalty.
I guess all life isn't precious after all.
I guess all life isn't precious after all.
2
Of course the voluntary removal of a fetus from the body of a woman is not murder according to the Bible and according to US law. Killing a breathing person is murder.
In fact the Bible treats the involuntary removal of a fetus from a woman's body as a minor crime punishable with a fine to a woman's husband (Exodus). Murder in the Bible is considered a capital offence.
The religious minority that object to abortion on religious grounds are violating the US Constitution by wanting to force women to decide whether to have an abortion or not on their own faith not hers.
All life is precious. A fetus is NOT a living animal according to MY RELIGION.
In fact the Bible treats the involuntary removal of a fetus from a woman's body as a minor crime punishable with a fine to a woman's husband (Exodus). Murder in the Bible is considered a capital offence.
The religious minority that object to abortion on religious grounds are violating the US Constitution by wanting to force women to decide whether to have an abortion or not on their own faith not hers.
All life is precious. A fetus is NOT a living animal according to MY RELIGION.
2
For the anti-abortion crowd life is only sacred when it is inside a woman's womb. After birth, it's everybody for him/herself and the devil take the hindmost. Social Darwinism at its worst.
Place yourself in the position of the people who died horrible deaths and can now only speak from the grave due to the misdeeds of those being executed.
Quite frankly the introduction of medical personnel to provide a degree of humanity to the executions is unnecessary and primarily due to squeamishness in the part of liberals. The dragging on of executions after sentencing is the real horror here.
If you do the crime do the time. If you kill, expect to be executed.
Quite frankly the introduction of medical personnel to provide a degree of humanity to the executions is unnecessary and primarily due to squeamishness in the part of liberals. The dragging on of executions after sentencing is the real horror here.
If you do the crime do the time. If you kill, expect to be executed.
3
Easy solution to this supposed "death row doctor" dilemma - firing squads.
4
I thought Dr. Musso would elaborate on his observation that advocates try to end capital punishment by working towards asking clinicians to stay out of the process. But he didn't. If he really is opposed to capital punishment then he shouldn't be doing it. That would be the moral stance from which he is apparently devoid, particularly as it would presumably affect his correctional health care company's contracts.
Not sure what the point of this hit piece is, especially as it does not describe how the doctor participates in executions.
Also curious because the NYT and its readers seem to overwhelmingly favor physician assisted suicide and euthanasia, where most of the same objections apply.
Also curious because the NYT and its readers seem to overwhelmingly favor physician assisted suicide and euthanasia, where most of the same objections apply.
4
I do not support capital punishment except in the most heinous cases like Timothy McVeigh or Dylan Roof the Charleston Bible study killer.
I do support Dr. Musso's efforts to make executions as medically correct as possible. If execution is legal someone must make certain it is done properly. Look at Dr. Musso's efforts not only as taking life but as alleviating suffering and carrying out the law.
Even if I disagree with a particular death sentence that sentence should be carried out as quickly as possible in order to be as humane as possible. Execution should be a violent and sudden end to life that takes a few minutes at most not a protracted process that takes half an hour or more. I favor firing squad or guillotine.
These methods are violent and bloody but we fool ourselves if we think executing another human being is anything but violent and bloody.
Putting someone to sleep only masks the extreme violence that occurs inside the body of the condemned.
It is a mockery of jurisprudence to use the legal system in a childish effort to exact revenge. Revenge is for animals not human beings. We demean and belittle our own humanity if we use the State to exact some sick version of communal revenge by condoning a method of execution that unnecessarily prolongs suffering. If we must execute so be it but perform the execution in the most humane manner possible and make certain it is done quickly and effectively. We owe that to ourselves as human beings.
I do support Dr. Musso's efforts to make executions as medically correct as possible. If execution is legal someone must make certain it is done properly. Look at Dr. Musso's efforts not only as taking life but as alleviating suffering and carrying out the law.
Even if I disagree with a particular death sentence that sentence should be carried out as quickly as possible in order to be as humane as possible. Execution should be a violent and sudden end to life that takes a few minutes at most not a protracted process that takes half an hour or more. I favor firing squad or guillotine.
These methods are violent and bloody but we fool ourselves if we think executing another human being is anything but violent and bloody.
Putting someone to sleep only masks the extreme violence that occurs inside the body of the condemned.
It is a mockery of jurisprudence to use the legal system in a childish effort to exact revenge. Revenge is for animals not human beings. We demean and belittle our own humanity if we use the State to exact some sick version of communal revenge by condoning a method of execution that unnecessarily prolongs suffering. If we must execute so be it but perform the execution in the most humane manner possible and make certain it is done quickly and effectively. We owe that to ourselves as human beings.
Conditional support for capital punishment is a moral contradiction. Right for Adolph Eichmann but wrong for Major Hassan in Ft. Hood. It is either right or wrong, not just wrong for certain people, assuming that all are actually guilty.
1
What about the doctors who kill unborn babies????
They commit atrocities. Yes, the NY Times dies not question them.
The more hardened criminals that are executed, the better.
They commit atrocities. Yes, the NY Times dies not question them.
The more hardened criminals that are executed, the better.
1
Bible states that life begins at birth, declaring that God “breathed into his [Adam’s] nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul.” The verse implies that until Adam took his first breath he was not considered a living being.
Furthermore, you can scour the Bible with a fine-toothed comb, yet you will not find any passage that describes a prohibition or penalty for a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy. Not a single verse yet the anti-abortion movement continues to declare, in the name of God, that abortion is murder. It seems that God left out the prohibition of abortion or perhaps does not consider a fetus a full human life. I’ll let you decide.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eliyahu-federman/the-bible-is-not-prolife-...
Furthermore, you can scour the Bible with a fine-toothed comb, yet you will not find any passage that describes a prohibition or penalty for a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy. Not a single verse yet the anti-abortion movement continues to declare, in the name of God, that abortion is murder. It seems that God left out the prohibition of abortion or perhaps does not consider a fetus a full human life. I’ll let you decide.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eliyahu-federman/the-bible-is-not-prolife-...
3
What would the world be like without rationalizations? By lending his presence to a barbaric practice, the doctor is explicitly and implicitly lending his support to it. With false convictions, racial discrimination, and discrimination against people with disabilities rampant in the death penalty system, it is very likely that the doctor assisted at an unfair or erroneous execution. Or does he want to believe that all was fair in the conviction and sentence phases? If he does so believe, he is living in a fantasy land. Most of the world has turned away from the death penalty, that the US has not is outrageous and that the doctor's presence makes everyone feel better is even worse.
3
Was all fair in the commission of a heinous crime?
That a State in 2017 kills its citizens (finding euphemisms such as "capital punishment", "execution", etc) is bad enough. But to call someone who "performs an execution" a medical doctor is insulting for medical doctors.
8
a medical doctor is insulting for medical doctors.
No more insulting than doctors laughing at someone's body under anesthesia or robbing the poor with overcharges and unnecessary tests on his own lab equipment.
No more insulting than doctors laughing at someone's body under anesthesia or robbing the poor with overcharges and unnecessary tests on his own lab equipment.
The bulk of work done by physicians involves talking. Taking accurate histories, explaining diagnoses, therapies and other health associated issues including talking with relatives. We can explain anything to our satisfaction. This doc is involved in killing. Perfumed words cover the smell but the fact remains. Some otherwise wonderful people, including docs were slave owners. That odious practice has maintained its status. This mans income includes money paid for the supervised killing of persons not in agreement with that act.
2
“end of life comfort measures” is no more than euphemism.
The US legal system provides revenge not justice and it is trying to coat the moral issue by "providing" medical kill services while not even being able to produce the lethal drugs for the task.
I fully accept the fact that state runs executions as long as its people want this to happen.
But I do not see why a state has to provide some "moral show" to make bad system look good?
If you want to execute prisoners, get real and provide a solution that will serve the task in an honest way.
Hang the prisoner, decapitate or shoot them but do not play the moral game.
Stop showing off.
Or become a member of the 21st century community. provide justice not revenge and abandon the death penalty altogether.
The US legal system provides revenge not justice and it is trying to coat the moral issue by "providing" medical kill services while not even being able to produce the lethal drugs for the task.
I fully accept the fact that state runs executions as long as its people want this to happen.
But I do not see why a state has to provide some "moral show" to make bad system look good?
If you want to execute prisoners, get real and provide a solution that will serve the task in an honest way.
Hang the prisoner, decapitate or shoot them but do not play the moral game.
Stop showing off.
Or become a member of the 21st century community. provide justice not revenge and abandon the death penalty altogether.
1
He would have never thought his career path would take him there?
Well, doctor, all you had to do was to take a less lucrative turn.
I couldn't finish watching the interview. Too much hypocrisy.
Well, doctor, all you had to do was to take a less lucrative turn.
I couldn't finish watching the interview. Too much hypocrisy.
1
So you put his name, his photo, and a video out there for the crazies. Why not just publish the route his grandkids take to go to school?
4
He participated in a film.
Well, let's outlaw capital punishment in this country. Then we will be rid of these types of "doctors."
1
Dr. Musso can justify his actions however he wants. But at the end of the day, the only reason he is able to come back to a beautiful home is because he has killed someone. As the sign so aptly stated, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
1
The Hippocratic Oath? Seriously? Taking the oath is a ritual of guild membership, nothing more. After all, do we really place much stock in an oath to pagan gods done on the graduation stage? Grow up, people.
1
Thanks, Dr. Mengele. (Yeah, Godwin, I know)
1
I can think of a number of reasons why Dr. Musso does it and why his critics are hypocrites.
He is a patriotic American who carries out the will of the people.
He is a humanitarian who tries to ensure the people's will is carried out in as humane a fashion as possible.
He is a professional who refuses to kowtow to activist doctors who have cooked up bogus medical arguments to try to take the decision about capital punishment out of the hands of the people.
If the death penalty reduces the number of murders (as I believe it does) then his actions reduce harm, and it is the opponents of the death penalty who cause the greater harm.
As Ken Levy notes in his comment, doctors end life support from, or injecting death-hastening morphine into, terminally ill patients who are in great pain. Doctors also often carry out the wishes of the patient and/or the family by stopping life-prolonging treatment. Are those not the practice of medicine?
He is a patriotic American who carries out the will of the people.
He is a humanitarian who tries to ensure the people's will is carried out in as humane a fashion as possible.
He is a professional who refuses to kowtow to activist doctors who have cooked up bogus medical arguments to try to take the decision about capital punishment out of the hands of the people.
If the death penalty reduces the number of murders (as I believe it does) then his actions reduce harm, and it is the opponents of the death penalty who cause the greater harm.
As Ken Levy notes in his comment, doctors end life support from, or injecting death-hastening morphine into, terminally ill patients who are in great pain. Doctors also often carry out the wishes of the patient and/or the family by stopping life-prolonging treatment. Are those not the practice of medicine?
Death as a revenge punishment has frequently been justified in literature, most notably in Hamlet and the Iliad. And execution in real life hass effectively been sanctioned, even by the Times, which wrote that:
"Saddam Hussein’s horrendous crimes deserve exemplary punishment. During his own dictatorship, that would have meant a gruesome death, after a staged trial or no trial."
The case for capital punishment as revenge for heinous crimes is far from depraved. Had he not committed suicide, execution of Hitler would surely have won widespread support. The infamous and unspeakably cruel murder of Mathew Shepard, a young gay student, resulted in life sentences, which many considered inadequate.
Those who oppose capital punishment outright believe that revenge against heinous killers does not justify execution. They take a position that is often contrary to human nature as expressed in both fiction and fact. This is not to say that their views are wrong. To the contrary they are compelling. But so are contrary views. This is a matter that reasonable people can disagree about. And so a doctor's decision to participate in the process is fairly debatable. On the other hand, his decision to run a profitable business off of executions is clearly unseemly.
"Saddam Hussein’s horrendous crimes deserve exemplary punishment. During his own dictatorship, that would have meant a gruesome death, after a staged trial or no trial."
The case for capital punishment as revenge for heinous crimes is far from depraved. Had he not committed suicide, execution of Hitler would surely have won widespread support. The infamous and unspeakably cruel murder of Mathew Shepard, a young gay student, resulted in life sentences, which many considered inadequate.
Those who oppose capital punishment outright believe that revenge against heinous killers does not justify execution. They take a position that is often contrary to human nature as expressed in both fiction and fact. This is not to say that their views are wrong. To the contrary they are compelling. But so are contrary views. This is a matter that reasonable people can disagree about. And so a doctor's decision to participate in the process is fairly debatable. On the other hand, his decision to run a profitable business off of executions is clearly unseemly.
2
The legal basis for execution is essentially that the death row inmate committed the ultimate harm to a fellow human being by executing them. For Dr. Musso to allege he is not doing harm by executing others, but in fact comforting them, does not negate that he too contributed to the ultimate harm to the death row inmate he helped execute.
Death is not always harm. Physician assisted suicide should be available in every State in the US.
1
I don't oppose capital punishment for appropriate crimes (although I am troubled by the frequency with which DNA evidence has cleared people thought to be guilty)
The problem is that 'modern' technological methods of execution have a high failure rate and often lead to "cruel" punishment. This is true of the electric chair, the gas chamber, and lethal injection. It seems that lethal injection should be very humane, but in practice, it often is not. The French developed a very quick and surgical method known as the Guillotine. A firing squad brings a quick death, and so does a device that shoots a metal bolt into the brain (as when cattle are killed humanely). In addition to being quick and effective, these methods do not require the participation of a doctor.
I agree with a suggestion made in the film. Medicalizing execution makes the act more palatable to society (even when methods are available that are more reliable and probably less painful). The film shows an execution that goes well. I have heard of a number of executions where this has not been the case.
Bottom line: we can perform executions with minimal cruelty and without the participation of doctors.
The problem is that 'modern' technological methods of execution have a high failure rate and often lead to "cruel" punishment. This is true of the electric chair, the gas chamber, and lethal injection. It seems that lethal injection should be very humane, but in practice, it often is not. The French developed a very quick and surgical method known as the Guillotine. A firing squad brings a quick death, and so does a device that shoots a metal bolt into the brain (as when cattle are killed humanely). In addition to being quick and effective, these methods do not require the participation of a doctor.
I agree with a suggestion made in the film. Medicalizing execution makes the act more palatable to society (even when methods are available that are more reliable and probably less painful). The film shows an execution that goes well. I have heard of a number of executions where this has not been the case.
Bottom line: we can perform executions with minimal cruelty and without the participation of doctors.
Does Dr. Musso really believe he adds something of value to the execution process through his participation? I doubt it. It sounds like this is just another part-time gig; an easy and reliable income stream for him, and nothing more.
3
"Do no harm". Medicine abandoned that quaint bromide a long time ago. And morals? I pay taxes to a government which kills, for example, a taxi driver unknowingly transporting an alleged terrorist because, well, it is the best opportunity to kill the terrorist. The U.S. "accidentally" bombed a clearly marked and known hospital and killed over 42. Most recently, the U.S. admitted killing 33 civilians, mostly women and children, as the result of defending Afghan and American soldiers in a firefight in some unimportant village. If I had any morals I wouldn't pay taxes which finance killing little, expendable people who have never been more than a travel day from their home in Afghanistan. So don't get all self-righteous. If you are an American and pay taxes you have plenty of blood on your shoes.
2
"End of life comfort measures?" Call them what they really are: medically-aided murders.
1
Dr. Musso and anyone else who participates in an execution commits murder. That they are paid for it makes it murder for hire. I don't care how often the doctor says he opposes capital punishment.
I understand that Roman soldiers might offer the crucified a stupefying drink (wine and myrrh) to dull the pain. Those soldiers didn't have much choice about participating--they could have been whipped, imprisoned, or even killed for not obeying orders. Dr. Musso and the prison staff who do this work are free to quit and find decent work elsewhere. That they continue to execute people says a great deal about their character, or lack of it. To quote Mario Savio: “There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. ... And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop."
I understand that Roman soldiers might offer the crucified a stupefying drink (wine and myrrh) to dull the pain. Those soldiers didn't have much choice about participating--they could have been whipped, imprisoned, or even killed for not obeying orders. Dr. Musso and the prison staff who do this work are free to quit and find decent work elsewhere. That they continue to execute people says a great deal about their character, or lack of it. To quote Mario Savio: “There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. ... And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop."
3
Let's say you're the person about to be executed. You may or may not be guilty of the offense for which you were sentenced to die, perhaps painfully over an extended period. You can choose to have an executioner with medical knowledge or an executioner who was a prison guard. You hope not to suffer as you die. Do you think your best option would be the doctor or guard?
Capital punishment is inhumane but legal. Dr. Musso feels called to help the helpless, and while we deplore what that involves, he is trying to prevent isuffering.
Capital punishment is inhumane but legal. Dr. Musso feels called to help the helpless, and while we deplore what that involves, he is trying to prevent isuffering.
3
It is immoral and against medical ethics to facility killing another human when that person may NOT be guilty or may have been disadvantaged by class, race, prosecutorial misconduct, or lack of adequate representation. Period
4
Geez as a Anesthesiologist I don't think it would be too difficult to a plan and a "humane execution". But would I want to find out exactly how I might feel post "proceedure" ,Whether or not the punishment fits the crime. I'm trying to keep people alive and doubt sitting down for a cold beer to decompress after that long day is gonna make me feel that much better. I do confess to being a bit on the fence over the ethics of someone with my expertise doing this because I can assure you that the poor soul who is dispatched is going to mostly likely go very quietly and not like some of the horror show executions I have read about. But put simply : " it ain't me babe. ". And it isn't just what others would say it's more how I be affected. Yes this guy managed to roll it into a total healthcare solutions. Notice he has moved on from the actual.dispatch and instead pays some other soul for his services.
3
Well, doctors that took the oath assist with abortions too.
1
Why not just dispense with any further pretense and simply outsource this gruesome, bloodthirsty business to ISIS? They at least own up to embracing medieval values.
He's a business man first and physician second. Please stop with his self righteous defense of his humane participation in this act. I am shocked the NYT gave him this stage. As an Emergency Physician I am embarrassed to say we trained in the same discipline.
3
In considering this issue - whether physicians should or should not be involved in the deliberate infliction of death - I strongly recommend the viewing of Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred Leuchter Jr. The inventor of the device used to administer poison into the body of a condemned inmate, he also was responsible for repairing and maintaining other death devices, like the electric chair and calculating appropriate drops for hangings. He later got involved in a Holocaust denial organization, which led to the end of his professional career working for state and federal prisons. However, his explanations and justifications for working on execution devices weirdly echoes those provided by this physicians though, as a medical practitioner, Dr. Musso had a higher standard to meet.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0192335/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0192335/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Could you imagine how barbaric capital punishment would be were it not overseen by doctors? I don't think doctors should profit from putting someone to death but I recognize that until we decide to join the rest of the same world and abandon the practice we do need someone from the medical community to ensure that it is carried out in a humane manner. These doctors and nurses are caught in a no win situation and rationalizing it keeps them sane.
3
By the way, Lauren, the Milgram experiments, designed to demonstrate how easily an authoritarian structure can subvert morality--and by virtue of its deception of participants was later declared unethical -- showed that while there were 15% of participants who would actively and aggressively punish on orders, there were also 15% who utterly refused to do so once they saw what was involved.
And Musso, who is certainly a great rationalizer of his criminal participation makes the claim " If someone, a family member, has done something horrible and ended up on death row..."; whatever deeds the condemned may or may not have done, their primary misdeed was to be poor and or black or both.
Can anyone writing here imagine consulting this man as if he were actually a doctor rather than what he is--an executioner.
And Musso, who is certainly a great rationalizer of his criminal participation makes the claim " If someone, a family member, has done something horrible and ended up on death row..."; whatever deeds the condemned may or may not have done, their primary misdeed was to be poor and or black or both.
Can anyone writing here imagine consulting this man as if he were actually a doctor rather than what he is--an executioner.
5
That's interesting, rxfxworld. A black Detroit cop retired and wrote a book about his experiences. He said that 15% of the cops were sincerely trying to help people, 15% of the cops were pathological bullies who wanted to use their position to abuse people, and 70% would go along with whatever their partner did.
1
So when is it OK to kill, for god or country? Humans have been killing each other forever, I could care less if a trained doctor participates in executions or abortions. There are still 7 billion left and counting. Humanity is on the precipice of extinction and we worry about the morality of one doctor?
2
Nice house.
3
Mengele couldn't have said it better.
5
Participation in state-sponsored murder makes him no better or different than the criminal. This is not the mark of a civilized human.
4
He implies that he provides a service to the person he kills. What service? Making sure there is no infection? Not really relevant. To be sure that the drugs enter in properly lest the patient die with needless pain?
This so-called doctor would fit in another time and place where a person's religion, sexual orientation or political opinions were the crime.
This doc does it for the money. He rationalizes just as men who sexually use women rationalize their behavior.
As to the issue of doctors and abortions: When does an ovum become a human being? Is a human being created at conception? When does a woman's body on longer belong to her? Answer that question and then the question of doctor's helping with abortions can be answered.
Finally why are people obsessed with abortions and apparently don't care about people killed by governments? If every execution was without any question solely about guilt for some heinous crime then maybe it could be justified. But if one innocent person is killed (and from what I've read innocent people have been killed by the state) is not that a murder by the government? If God weeps it is because we condemn the living who have fallen furthest while live in obsessive fantasies of controlling others because of their sex.
This so-called doctor would fit in another time and place where a person's religion, sexual orientation or political opinions were the crime.
This doc does it for the money. He rationalizes just as men who sexually use women rationalize their behavior.
As to the issue of doctors and abortions: When does an ovum become a human being? Is a human being created at conception? When does a woman's body on longer belong to her? Answer that question and then the question of doctor's helping with abortions can be answered.
Finally why are people obsessed with abortions and apparently don't care about people killed by governments? If every execution was without any question solely about guilt for some heinous crime then maybe it could be justified. But if one innocent person is killed (and from what I've read innocent people have been killed by the state) is not that a murder by the government? If God weeps it is because we condemn the living who have fallen furthest while live in obsessive fantasies of controlling others because of their sex.
4
Here's a good test. Ask a pro-lifer (more like a pro-birther) if they are walking by an in vitro fertilization lab on fire and they hear a three year old child screaming. On entering to rescue the child, they note three trays, each containing an already fertilized ovum already beginning to divide at the other side of the building/. The dilemma: They only have time for one rescue. Is the "life" of one three-year-old more valuable than the "lives" of 36 conceived zygotes aged about a week? Or make it harder and say they are 36 fetuses already twelve weeks developed. Does his or her calculus change?
If the right-to-lifer chooses to rescue the child, and let the zygotes burn then he or she has made a value judgement that the child is more human (and more deserving of life) than the zygotes. By right-to-life values, they have saved 1 life and let 36 lives be destroyed by fire. Yet, they tell the rest of us there is no difference between an ovum, blastocyst, zygote, or early-term fetus than a living child.
If the right-to-lifer chooses to rescue the child, and let the zygotes burn then he or she has made a value judgement that the child is more human (and more deserving of life) than the zygotes. By right-to-life values, they have saved 1 life and let 36 lives be destroyed by fire. Yet, they tell the rest of us there is no difference between an ovum, blastocyst, zygote, or early-term fetus than a living child.
Speaking as a physician, it is so obviously clear how extraordinarily unethical the behavior of this physician who helps facilitate state-sponsored murder is.
Forget the ethics of whether the death penalty is just or not. A physician who facilitates or participates in the death penalty is anything but a physician. They are someone committing murder.
To analogize to the death penalty to the withdraw of care of patient who is brain dead is completely specious and erroneous. And without a doubt, a physician who participates in this should have their licensed revoked and be barred from any professional medical association or society. Truly despicable.
Forget the ethics of whether the death penalty is just or not. A physician who facilitates or participates in the death penalty is anything but a physician. They are someone committing murder.
To analogize to the death penalty to the withdraw of care of patient who is brain dead is completely specious and erroneous. And without a doubt, a physician who participates in this should have their licensed revoked and be barred from any professional medical association or society. Truly despicable.
6
So what about all of the doctors who perform abortions, killing unborn children ?
Truly despicable.
Truly despicable.
He does it for the same reason other doctors do what they do: solely and exclusively for money. If you have a doctor, you know how terribly greedy they are because the first thing, and only thing in many cases is what is your insurance company. No insurance, no treatment. The shame of American medicine
2
I think think that if we're going to engage in capital punishment as a nation, then pushing the life-ending meds should be done by random members of the population, in the same way that we have juries sentence someone to death. If it haunts you for the rest of your life then so be it.
I think we would see support of capital punishment drop precipitously.
Also, it appears that this guy is making a pretty good living off of his company which does prison health care. He's not going to risk that and say no to the executions. He gives us doctors a bad name.
I think we would see support of capital punishment drop precipitously.
Also, it appears that this guy is making a pretty good living off of his company which does prison health care. He's not going to risk that and say no to the executions. He gives us doctors a bad name.
4
I've read a lot of articles about prison health care in JAMA and several major newspapers including the NYT.
I don't know about CorrectHealth specifically, but in all the investigations, prison health care in general seems to be incompetent.
There are many cases of prison nurses and doctors allowing patients to die from withholding treatment, even such basic needs as insulin for diabetes.
There are a few legal cases in which the facts came out, and even fewer in which the prisoners' family won judgments, but it's difficult and usually impossible for a prisoner to bring a successful lawsuit against the authorities, no matter how outrageous and negligent their behavior, as for example the JAMA series reported.
The main underlying problem seems to be that the prison medical services get their contracts through political connections and influence, and they insulate themselves from accountability in the same way. They also have anti-whistleblower provisions in their employment contracts.
The JAMA reporter said that as a result of his series, things have gotten worse. The prison health service sued JAMA for libel, and got the laws changed to restrict disclosure of information to the public or media, and exclude it from freedom of information requests, to make it more difficult to publish such stories or hold them up to accountability.
I don't know about CorrectHealth specifically, but in all the investigations, prison health care in general seems to be incompetent.
There are many cases of prison nurses and doctors allowing patients to die from withholding treatment, even such basic needs as insulin for diabetes.
There are a few legal cases in which the facts came out, and even fewer in which the prisoners' family won judgments, but it's difficult and usually impossible for a prisoner to bring a successful lawsuit against the authorities, no matter how outrageous and negligent their behavior, as for example the JAMA series reported.
The main underlying problem seems to be that the prison medical services get their contracts through political connections and influence, and they insulate themselves from accountability in the same way. They also have anti-whistleblower provisions in their employment contracts.
The JAMA reporter said that as a result of his series, things have gotten worse. The prison health service sued JAMA for libel, and got the laws changed to restrict disclosure of information to the public or media, and exclude it from freedom of information requests, to make it more difficult to publish such stories or hold them up to accountability.
1
" pushing the life-ending meds should be done by random members of the population,"
Surely you know that law suits would be filed against the randomness and the right of refusal to violate the individual conscience. The duty would fall to those willing to volunteer.
Surely you know that law suits would be filed against the randomness and the right of refusal to violate the individual conscience. The duty would fall to those willing to volunteer.
1
" He gives us doctors a bad name."
He does? All by his lonesome?
Check around some. Your profession Is dragging itself down in general with prescriptions that harm people because and aren't recognized as the culprit. The lack of knowledge grows worse every year. What doctor doesn't know that Hepatitis B is carried by a person for life? I've had three in the last 6 years. What doctor prescribes a drug which causes a reaction while four other doctors don't know they're looking at the side effects of it and try to give the patient more?
Doctor incompetence has reached a new high.
He does? All by his lonesome?
Check around some. Your profession Is dragging itself down in general with prescriptions that harm people because and aren't recognized as the culprit. The lack of knowledge grows worse every year. What doctor doesn't know that Hepatitis B is carried by a person for life? I've had three in the last 6 years. What doctor prescribes a drug which causes a reaction while four other doctors don't know they're looking at the side effects of it and try to give the patient more?
Doctor incompetence has reached a new high.
Paging Dr. Robert Lifton. We're ready for our life-lesson, doc.
1
I'm still waiting for an editorial or op-ed with a coherent argument for why Dylan Roof should not be executed. Almost all arguments against capital punishment note its capriciousness or racial discrepancies. But these are arguments to mend it, not end it.
If you think capital punishment should be totally abolished, you need to explain why someone like Dylan Roof - where the crime is heinous and guilt is unquestioned - should not be executed.
If you think capital punishment should be totally abolished, you need to explain why someone like Dylan Roof - where the crime is heinous and guilt is unquestioned - should not be executed.
5
That's easy, because killing is wrong unless there is a present threat from the individual killed. There is no justification for the death penalty other than blood vengeance. I don't think Dylan Roof or any other person should be executed because the state shouldn't be in the business of killing people who currently are no threat to anyone.
You question assumes that state-sanctioned killing has an obvious rationale, so I'll ask you, "why do you think the state should kill people?" I've never seen a coherent argument for why the appropriate sanction to killing is retaliatory killing. At least when a more humane alternative is available.
I have no quarrel with law enforcement needing to take a life on occasion to protect themselves or the public. I have no problem with military targets being killed if they can't be captured alive or can only be captured with innocents being harmed. In those instances, the killing is in service of protection.
With the death penalty that is not the case. If we cleared the 3,000 or so people on death row in the USA, we could still protect the public from those offenders by use of incarceration.
So you that's my argument. Killing in this instance is not justified.
You question assumes that state-sanctioned killing has an obvious rationale, so I'll ask you, "why do you think the state should kill people?" I've never seen a coherent argument for why the appropriate sanction to killing is retaliatory killing. At least when a more humane alternative is available.
I have no quarrel with law enforcement needing to take a life on occasion to protect themselves or the public. I have no problem with military targets being killed if they can't be captured alive or can only be captured with innocents being harmed. In those instances, the killing is in service of protection.
With the death penalty that is not the case. If we cleared the 3,000 or so people on death row in the USA, we could still protect the public from those offenders by use of incarceration.
So you that's my argument. Killing in this instance is not justified.
Good idea "mend it, not end it." it has a nice ring to it.
Mending it is simple, demand human infallibility.
Good idea but not possible. This means now and then we will kill an innocent person, which is not acceptable. Capital punishment is for atheist China or theocratic Saudi Arabia. It is not good, for good ole US of A.
Mending it is simple, demand human infallibility.
Good idea but not possible. This means now and then we will kill an innocent person, which is not acceptable. Capital punishment is for atheist China or theocratic Saudi Arabia. It is not good, for good ole US of A.
3
He should not be executed, but given life without parole. When the State takes it upon themselves to end a life (no matter how heinous the person's crimes) it sends a message that cheapens all life. From 1990 to 2015, murder rates in states with the death penalty were higher every year than in states without the death penalty - sometimes by as much as 48%. There's also the question (Dylan Roof notwithstanding) that we have no idea how many innocents are executed because no groups exist to re-examine cases after the execution. There's also the capriciousness of the Death Penalty. 2015 saw 15,698 murders nationwide. Only 30 people were sentenced to death that year (the maximum being in 1996 when 315 capital sentences were handed down). Only 20 people were actually executed last year.
So, it isn't a deterrent. It is more likely going to come about because an indigent defendant has a sub-competent, right-out-of-law-school defense counsel, with only several hundred dollars allotted for expert testimony, forensics, or detectives to dig up witnesses or exculpatory evidence (which is routinely buried by prosecutors when they happen upon it).
Of course, all States do allow their citizens to kill others, but only to the sound of bugles and the waving of flags.
So, it isn't a deterrent. It is more likely going to come about because an indigent defendant has a sub-competent, right-out-of-law-school defense counsel, with only several hundred dollars allotted for expert testimony, forensics, or detectives to dig up witnesses or exculpatory evidence (which is routinely buried by prosecutors when they happen upon it).
Of course, all States do allow their citizens to kill others, but only to the sound of bugles and the waving of flags.
Sophistry: a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
Dr Musso claims that he is against the death penalty. He says he kills death row inmates because he is a humane man and he thinks he can ease their end of life transition.
We all are buffeted by conflicting beliefs and desires, but Dr Musso must understand that if he, along with the rest of the health care profession, refused to participate in executions, there would be no need to ease anyones transition. He has a clear choice: continue a barbaric practice that he is personally opposed to, or enable its persistence by supposedly making it more humane. Murder, legal or otherwise is never humane.
It is so easy for all of us to rationalize our worst actions. If Dr Musso were not paid handsomely for his executions, would he still feel that they are so righteous?
Dr Musso claims that he is against the death penalty. He says he kills death row inmates because he is a humane man and he thinks he can ease their end of life transition.
We all are buffeted by conflicting beliefs and desires, but Dr Musso must understand that if he, along with the rest of the health care profession, refused to participate in executions, there would be no need to ease anyones transition. He has a clear choice: continue a barbaric practice that he is personally opposed to, or enable its persistence by supposedly making it more humane. Murder, legal or otherwise is never humane.
It is so easy for all of us to rationalize our worst actions. If Dr Musso were not paid handsomely for his executions, would he still feel that they are so righteous?
4
If Musso and other physicians were to refuse then we'd simply go back to hanging or firing squads.
It doesn't take a doctor to give injections. Junkies teach themselves how to do it all the time. Pretty much everyone has seen enough medical shows to know what a flat line on a heart monitor means.
It doesn't take a doctor to give injections. Junkies teach themselves how to do it all the time. Pretty much everyone has seen enough medical shows to know what a flat line on a heart monitor means.
"humane death": What an oxymoron.
3
Yes, humane death.
If you were to read the pathology reports, police reports and trial transcripts you'll find that most of the people who were killed by the condemned prisoners was inhumane and brutal beyond belief.
These people go peacefully, lulled into their deaths in minutes with drugs which prevented the pain their victims probably felt over hours.
If you were to read the pathology reports, police reports and trial transcripts you'll find that most of the people who were killed by the condemned prisoners was inhumane and brutal beyond belief.
These people go peacefully, lulled into their deaths in minutes with drugs which prevented the pain their victims probably felt over hours.
The media praise the doctors who make a living aborting children at Planned Parenthood. This is a little hypocritical.
1
Zygotes who can't survive outside the womb. If men could get pregnant abortion would be a civil right.
5
For some of us doctors performing abortions are doing God's work providing healthcare to women who want it.
Fetus is NOT a baby according to both the US Constitution and the Bible. The US Supreme Court makes it clear women have the right to make a decision whether to have an abortion or not based on their own religion. The Bible says in Exodus the punishment for a person causing an abortion by hitting a woman is a fine to the husband. Punishment for killing a baby is death.
Not all religions agree with yours. Religion should be kept from the bodies of women who do not want it.
Fetus is NOT a baby according to both the US Constitution and the Bible. The US Supreme Court makes it clear women have the right to make a decision whether to have an abortion or not based on their own religion. The Bible says in Exodus the punishment for a person causing an abortion by hitting a woman is a fine to the husband. Punishment for killing a baby is death.
Not all religions agree with yours. Religion should be kept from the bodies of women who do not want it.
3
If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a tiger have? The answer is: four - calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. The anti-abortion movement has made an art out of using highly-charged, highly-emotional, often not accurate terms to sway people into emotional, not rational, thinking. Calling a zygote, blastocyst, or fetus a child is a mis-use of the word to endow the object with qualities it does not yet have. Until 1869, even the Catholic Church officially recognized the point at which a fetus received a 'soul' & became human as 16 1/2 weeks (116 days according to Pope Gregory XIII in 1590) - well into the second trimester (possibly because they had too many pregnant nuns in the Middle Ages). Catholic scholars have fought over when "ensoulment" took place for almost 2,000 years, so you can cherrypick your quotes, but ensoulment at conception only became official when Pope Pius IX made a deal with Bonaparte III. France's population had been falling for 100 years & he wanted abortion made illegal. Pius wanted the French to stop resisting his campaign for Papal Infallibility. And, so the deal was struck. It entered the Canon in 1917 & was finalized at Vatican II in 1962 through 1965.
St. Augustine believed that a fetus wasn't human until 4 weeks for a boy and 9 weeks for a girl!?! Aquinas also didn't believe in a human soul until quickening.
Except for medical threats to the fetus and pregnant woman, even today almost all abortions happen before quickening.
St. Augustine believed that a fetus wasn't human until 4 weeks for a boy and 9 weeks for a girl!?! Aquinas also didn't believe in a human soul until quickening.
Except for medical threats to the fetus and pregnant woman, even today almost all abortions happen before quickening.
A physician's perspective (and one opposed to capital punishment under nearly all circumstances):
--Arguing that capital punishment is inhumane and therefore should be done without the presence of a physician or nurse skilled in comforting the dying if needed is not only an incongruous argument but a deplorable one. It's the equivalent of saying "I am opposed to state-mandated execution and therefore it should be done as haphazardly as possible...that'll show those bureaucrats and the electorate." Where is the compassion in that? If someone is to die under any circumstances, whether it's justified in your eyes or not, it should be done as painlessly for that victim of law/disease/misfortune as possible. This statement is in no way contradictory to a physician's calling, nor his oath. To say otherwise is just...well...inhumane. Abortions will happen--it would be best if done in one trained in sterile and safe procedure. Suicides will happen--they should be done as painlessly as possible. As long as it's legal, capital punishment will happen--do it compassionately and minimize suffering.
And newsflash: Doctors and nurses profit off treating or preventing human morbidity and mortality. Capitalizing on the human condition is an unavoidable part of the job description...in fact it is the job description I wish this wasn't the case, but don't condemn this man for getting paid to do his job.
--Arguing that capital punishment is inhumane and therefore should be done without the presence of a physician or nurse skilled in comforting the dying if needed is not only an incongruous argument but a deplorable one. It's the equivalent of saying "I am opposed to state-mandated execution and therefore it should be done as haphazardly as possible...that'll show those bureaucrats and the electorate." Where is the compassion in that? If someone is to die under any circumstances, whether it's justified in your eyes or not, it should be done as painlessly for that victim of law/disease/misfortune as possible. This statement is in no way contradictory to a physician's calling, nor his oath. To say otherwise is just...well...inhumane. Abortions will happen--it would be best if done in one trained in sterile and safe procedure. Suicides will happen--they should be done as painlessly as possible. As long as it's legal, capital punishment will happen--do it compassionately and minimize suffering.
And newsflash: Doctors and nurses profit off treating or preventing human morbidity and mortality. Capitalizing on the human condition is an unavoidable part of the job description...in fact it is the job description I wish this wasn't the case, but don't condemn this man for getting paid to do his job.
11
"He [Dr. Musso] is a pragmatist and a businessman, who has founded numerous companies, including CorrectHealth, a provider of correctional health care in Georgia."
Most doctors are in the profession to make money and enjoy the good life and high social status which are associated with the profession, so, in that regard, there's nothing wrong with the choices Dr. Musso has made. Dr. Musso has chosen to serve the state as a medical professional, whereas most people are misled into believing that a doctor is supposed to work exclusively for the patient. A doctor works for whomever is paying for his work, whether private pay by the patient, a third-party insurer, or as a government employee. Dr. Musso's work is in the category of "social control," the same category as police officers, prison guards, social workers and psychologists.
Most doctors are in the profession to make money and enjoy the good life and high social status which are associated with the profession, so, in that regard, there's nothing wrong with the choices Dr. Musso has made. Dr. Musso has chosen to serve the state as a medical professional, whereas most people are misled into believing that a doctor is supposed to work exclusively for the patient. A doctor works for whomever is paying for his work, whether private pay by the patient, a third-party insurer, or as a government employee. Dr. Musso's work is in the category of "social control," the same category as police officers, prison guards, social workers and psychologists.
1
Why he participates probably has something to do with a very basic perception of what "doing harm" entails. Obviously, the good doctor disagrees with Ms. Knapp about his "last mile" activities -- probably due to his inability to take seriously someone who moves to Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, merely to produce a "feature length documentary on rock music and national identity among Mongolia’s urban youth".
Regardless of rationalizations decanted when needed for the media, the doctor probably figures he gives back enough on his OWN turf by helping remove from society some of its most violent rejects, thereby saving who knows how many (in prison and out) from further predations.
Go figure. But Ms. Knapp STILL is rather young -- what excuse Michael Moore is using these days must be a wonder to hear.
Regardless of rationalizations decanted when needed for the media, the doctor probably figures he gives back enough on his OWN turf by helping remove from society some of its most violent rejects, thereby saving who knows how many (in prison and out) from further predations.
Go figure. But Ms. Knapp STILL is rather young -- what excuse Michael Moore is using these days must be a wonder to hear.
6
Richard,
This is yet more from the "why can't we be like those other nations" crowd. Like those same "other nations" that have executed without due process a few hundred million of their own as well as each other's citizens in the last 100 years of war, revolution and civil strife.
No, I really don't want to be like them even if I "miss out" on all that "great free stuff" like "free government healthcare"! It's equally strange that the same people can't see who's really paying for the "free stuff" they give away either!
The "conscience of a Liberal" is a truly twisty thing!
This is yet more from the "why can't we be like those other nations" crowd. Like those same "other nations" that have executed without due process a few hundred million of their own as well as each other's citizens in the last 100 years of war, revolution and civil strife.
No, I really don't want to be like them even if I "miss out" on all that "great free stuff" like "free government healthcare"! It's equally strange that the same people can't see who's really paying for the "free stuff" they give away either!
The "conscience of a Liberal" is a truly twisty thing!
1
It's almost certain that Dr. Musso's efforts don't save "who knows how many (in prison and out) from further predations" since the best predictor of recidivism in prison and out is age, and beyond that capital crimes have one of the lowest recidivism rates regardless. I highly recommend "Just Mercy" as a beginning effort to educate yourself about the death penalty process in America. You're not that young so it's a wonder that you, like so many, remain so poorly informed on the topic.
1
I guess it's all just a matter of perspective. Because this is pretty much the same rationalization used by Rudolf Hoss when asked to explain his actions as commandant of Auschwitz. "They" -- and that presumes we have the right "they" -- had it coming and "we" did it as humanely as possible.
How do we know they had it coming? Because somebody in authority says so. Judicial lynchings of that sort were once commonplace in the United States, and I'm not so sure that this isn't still the case. A
Cold-blooding killing remains cold-blooded killing. The details aren't particularly important.
How do we know they had it coming? Because somebody in authority says so. Judicial lynchings of that sort were once commonplace in the United States, and I'm not so sure that this isn't still the case. A
Cold-blooding killing remains cold-blooded killing. The details aren't particularly important.
1
Profit first, then revenge not justice.
19
Actually, if you stop and think about it equivalent retribution precludes direct revenge.
Dr Musso's participation in executions "helps keep our capital punishment system as humane as possible." It is only the most tortured reasoning that can find any execution as "humane."
59
Agree, GCW, it's like my Spanish friends who try to convince me that killing the bull, in a bullfight, is an honor for the bull.
5
I'd rather be executed than spend many decades in prison. Not everyone thinks being alive is always the best option.
I'm anti-death penalty, BTW. I'll make sure if I do some heinous crime, I'll do it here in Texas so I'll be executed.
I'm anti-death penalty, BTW. I'll make sure if I do some heinous crime, I'll do it here in Texas so I'll be executed.
2
Mr. Musso--I won't call him a fellow doctor as he stains the profession--can rationalize his hypocritical behavior--opposes capital punishment but participates and profits from it all the way to the bank-- but involuntary ending of a human life is still murder even if it's state sanctioned murder. He is a disgrace to the generations of doctors of medicine who gave him the means to do the society's misdeeds.
59
So - you would refuse to participate in end of life actions for those that want to escape chronic disease or pain - and a practice that is legal in many countries around the world?
Just in passing - fully 73% of Kiwi's support such a choice.
Just in passing - fully 73% of Kiwi's support such a choice.
1
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Obviously rxfxworld considers himself a perfect person.
Obviously rxfxworld considers himself a perfect person.
One of the fundamental principles of medical ethics is patient autonomy -- the patient has a right to decide whether to accept a treatment.
Patients who are being executed don't have that choice.
Patients who are being executed don't have that choice.
1
"Do no harm." Is it harm to see that a condemned person dies in the least traumatic way possible? I think not.
Doctors who perform unnecessary procedures due to greed, or extend the miserable lives of terminally ill patients who are in tremendous pain artificially, or hand out addictive drugs by the handful rather than spend the time required to diagnose and treat people, or stop treatment when patients run out of money ... That is harm.
Doctors who perform unnecessary procedures due to greed, or extend the miserable lives of terminally ill patients who are in tremendous pain artificially, or hand out addictive drugs by the handful rather than spend the time required to diagnose and treat people, or stop treatment when patients run out of money ... That is harm.
35
The condemned person doesn't just "die," he or she is murdered by the state. The passivity in your comment ignores that.
.
So is it harm to see that a condemned person is murdered in the least traumatic way possible? Yes it is.
.
So is it harm to see that a condemned person is murdered in the least traumatic way possible? Yes it is.
14
Unfortunately, there are plenty of greedy doctors who do all of the things you decry above.
1
BOOM! Hit the nail on the head. There are far more doctors doing FAR more harm than this man.
3
A doctor’s purpose is not merely to heal and save life but also to alleviate and minimize suffering. So Dr. Musso is not necessarily violating the Hippocratic Oath – no more, arguably, than if he were withdrawing life support from, or injecting death-hastening morphine into, a terminally ill patient who is in great pain.
Still, there is arguably a dangerous slippery slope from minimizing suffering to rationalizing unjust killing. The Nazis infamously crossed this line when they euthanized tens of thousands of mentally and physically disabled people, ostensibly (in part) to put them out of their misery.
As long as 30+ states, the federal government, and the military refuse to repeal their death penalty statutes, we will unfortunately need people like Dr. Musso to administer it. Still, I look forward to the day when either the Supreme Court declares capital punishment unconstitutional or every state – including the most recent offenders, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, and Missouri – finally stops practicing it.
In theory, execution is proportional punishment for 1st degree murder (and terrorism, treason, and espionage), but there are too many moral, constitutional, and practical problems with its administration. Most notably, often because of false confessions or unconscious racial bias among jurors, defendants are wrongfully convicted. And while imprisonment is bad enough for a crime that the accused didn’t commit, death is irreversible.
Still, there is arguably a dangerous slippery slope from minimizing suffering to rationalizing unjust killing. The Nazis infamously crossed this line when they euthanized tens of thousands of mentally and physically disabled people, ostensibly (in part) to put them out of their misery.
As long as 30+ states, the federal government, and the military refuse to repeal their death penalty statutes, we will unfortunately need people like Dr. Musso to administer it. Still, I look forward to the day when either the Supreme Court declares capital punishment unconstitutional or every state – including the most recent offenders, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, and Missouri – finally stops practicing it.
In theory, execution is proportional punishment for 1st degree murder (and terrorism, treason, and espionage), but there are too many moral, constitutional, and practical problems with its administration. Most notably, often because of false confessions or unconscious racial bias among jurors, defendants are wrongfully convicted. And while imprisonment is bad enough for a crime that the accused didn’t commit, death is irreversible.
20
I think it is wrong to compare capital punishment to the withdrawal of life support, or injection of morphine into a terminally ill patient, because the latter two are presumed to be in the best interests of the individual. Execution, on the other hand, is intended to harm the "patient".
I am firmly against capital punishment (my opinion may well be coloured by the fact that I have never known a victim of murder) but I am willing to take Dr Musso on his word that he is simply trying to assure that the horror of execution is minimized.
I am firmly against capital punishment (my opinion may well be coloured by the fact that I have never known a victim of murder) but I am willing to take Dr Musso on his word that he is simply trying to assure that the horror of execution is minimized.
2
Ken:
I appreciate the thoughtful comment. But let me offer some reactions.
1. Like the rest of us, doctors are free to make up their own minds about the morality of the death penalty -- and casting their ballots or speaking accordingly. What is unethical an unprofessional is the way doctor opposed to capital punishment dress up their objections in pseudo-medical terms.
2. You welcome the prospect of the Supreme Court declaring capital punishment unconstitutional some day. That would be another arrogant usurpation of the rights of the people to make the decision. If it happens it deserves impeachment followed by ... well, capital punishment. Now, if you use your constitutionally protected free speech to persuade voters and legislatures to abolish capital punishment, I may disagree with you, but I can't fault the way you have done it.
3. The slippery slope argument is suspect. Should we re-criminalize pot because its legalization may lead to greater acceptance of the use of far more dangerous drugs? Or re-criminalize abortion because it diminishes respect for life? In any case, the Nazis' euthanasia program had everything to do with their master race ideology, and little or nothing to do with compassion.
4. You say that capital punishment is irreversible. So is murder.
I appreciate the thoughtful comment. But let me offer some reactions.
1. Like the rest of us, doctors are free to make up their own minds about the morality of the death penalty -- and casting their ballots or speaking accordingly. What is unethical an unprofessional is the way doctor opposed to capital punishment dress up their objections in pseudo-medical terms.
2. You welcome the prospect of the Supreme Court declaring capital punishment unconstitutional some day. That would be another arrogant usurpation of the rights of the people to make the decision. If it happens it deserves impeachment followed by ... well, capital punishment. Now, if you use your constitutionally protected free speech to persuade voters and legislatures to abolish capital punishment, I may disagree with you, but I can't fault the way you have done it.
3. The slippery slope argument is suspect. Should we re-criminalize pot because its legalization may lead to greater acceptance of the use of far more dangerous drugs? Or re-criminalize abortion because it diminishes respect for life? In any case, the Nazis' euthanasia program had everything to do with their master race ideology, and little or nothing to do with compassion.
4. You say that capital punishment is irreversible. So is murder.
2
You're right: no ethical MD can participate in an execution, as death is ALWAYS harm.
When you get to the next part of the Oath, which expressly proscribes abortion, it should make for another interesting film, in which highly paid killers of the ultimate innocents defend their execrable practice, all the way to the bank.
At least this guy's "victims" overwhelmingly deserve that they get. Can anyone say the same about an unborn child?
When you get to the next part of the Oath, which expressly proscribes abortion, it should make for another interesting film, in which highly paid killers of the ultimate innocents defend their execrable practice, all the way to the bank.
At least this guy's "victims" overwhelmingly deserve that they get. Can anyone say the same about an unborn child?
16
Abortion is not an easy decision for every patient, why would anyone assume they know whats best for everyone.
23
A common misunderstanding of the Hippocratic oath, the actual statement is that one will not administer a pessary to induce abortion. A pessary would look rather like a tampon, only would be used to administer medication which would be absorbed through the vaginal tissues. In pre-modern eras, this form of aborifacient would be prohibitively dangerous for the woman, and physicians in ancient Greece took an oath to not administer medications to end pregnancy in this form. They did not, however, swear not to administer abortions.
In fact, as pregnancy could not be determined before the 20th century until around the time of quickening (roughly 5 months along), and as menstrual cycles might be interrupted by any number of factors (stress, weight loss, high levels of exercise, cancer), physicians commonly would order emmenagogues - treatments used to stimulate the menstrual cycles which, of course, would also end a pregnancy.
Physicians did so often, using a variety of medications. And they did so legally and with the blessing of the Catholic church, as even Augustine accorded the sin of ending a pregnancy a slight one if the mother was unmarried, poor, in ill health, and desperate. And even then, if the pregnancy was terminated before quickening, the sin was nearly non-existent. Only after ensoulment would the fetus be considered a child.
In fact, as pregnancy could not be determined before the 20th century until around the time of quickening (roughly 5 months along), and as menstrual cycles might be interrupted by any number of factors (stress, weight loss, high levels of exercise, cancer), physicians commonly would order emmenagogues - treatments used to stimulate the menstrual cycles which, of course, would also end a pregnancy.
Physicians did so often, using a variety of medications. And they did so legally and with the blessing of the Catholic church, as even Augustine accorded the sin of ending a pregnancy a slight one if the mother was unmarried, poor, in ill health, and desperate. And even then, if the pregnancy was terminated before quickening, the sin was nearly non-existent. Only after ensoulment would the fetus be considered a child.
5
It's not an unborn child. It is, depending on the stage, a clump of cells. Yes, it is alive, just like a turnip, but it is not a human being.
4
I ask myself the same question about doctors who perform abortions. How can anyone who took an oath to do no harm snuff out the life of a child in the mother's womb?
19
Maybe they see more clearly the woman in front of them than you do?
1
Some women would die if they attempt to carry a pregnancy to term and that's a fact. Sometimes ethics require you to make choice between two undesirable outcomes.
2
And why doesn't the times run the names, photos, and video of the doctors who helped the torturers at Gitmo?
1
The Hippocratic Oath applies to the practice of medicine. That Oath exists for the very important reason that until the 20th century medicine was pretty much a crap shoot that did as much or more harm to the patient more frequently than it helped. It was meant to remind them not to take chances or do things known to be harmful. It is not meant to be an oath for them to apply to every part of their lives.
Engaging in execution of convicted felons is not part of the practice of medicine and has nothing to do with practicing medicine.
How can a rational mind even get to the place of confusing this difference so much they ask the question?
Engaging in execution of convicted felons is not part of the practice of medicine and has nothing to do with practicing medicine.
How can a rational mind even get to the place of confusing this difference so much they ask the question?
13
Perhaps the guards can do the injections. Why not poison the inmates or just let them starve. Prisons in this country are insane asylums at best, frankly I would think the condemned would welcome the release.
1
Let the military do it. That's their job.
3
"Let the military do it. That's their job"
No it's not our job. Our job is to defend our country and its citizens from those who would harm the. If we kill it is for that purpose alone. We are not executioners else we would never take prisoners.
No it's not our job. Our job is to defend our country and its citizens from those who would harm the. If we kill it is for that purpose alone. We are not executioners else we would never take prisoners.
A perfectly consistent and coherent review of a doctor's role in capital punishment in the state of Georgia. Well done Dr Musso.
You can't fault the consistency in his overview. There may well be doctors who could in all honesty say, "They deserve to go, and I'm glad to facilitate that!" Such is not the case here. A rough analogy would be to the decisions that doctors make when a patient is in vegetative state and the life support is advised to be withdrawn. Except of course in this case it's the state that is doing the shutting off and rather than a vegetative state there is a state of criminal liability. The point is common that medical oversight is appropriate in each case.
The interesting part of this article is that it addresses a role that needs to be free of judgment to be properly and ethically carried out and will no doubt attract nothing but judgment. I presume that the vast majority of the comments will be lacking fair consideration of the doctor's role, in order to defend a position about capital punishment itself, skipping over the matter at hand here in order to rabble rouse one way of the other.
You can't fault the consistency in his overview. There may well be doctors who could in all honesty say, "They deserve to go, and I'm glad to facilitate that!" Such is not the case here. A rough analogy would be to the decisions that doctors make when a patient is in vegetative state and the life support is advised to be withdrawn. Except of course in this case it's the state that is doing the shutting off and rather than a vegetative state there is a state of criminal liability. The point is common that medical oversight is appropriate in each case.
The interesting part of this article is that it addresses a role that needs to be free of judgment to be properly and ethically carried out and will no doubt attract nothing but judgment. I presume that the vast majority of the comments will be lacking fair consideration of the doctor's role, in order to defend a position about capital punishment itself, skipping over the matter at hand here in order to rabble rouse one way of the other.
23
The Death Penalty is archaic. All the pro-lifers who voted for Trump ignore the role of compassion in moving America forward, not backward. Law and Order is not the answer. Peace and Justice is the answer. War is not the answer. If you are really pro-life, you should be against the death penalty to make America more humane. We need to move forward, not backward.
27
Paul,
Science you brought the "pro-life" vs the death penalty issue op, let's ask the question a different way.
Why is it acceptable for doctors, because they took an oath to "do no harm" to perform assisted suicide? The same people who are against the State protecting us from criminals by using the death penalty are mostly for allowing assisted suicide and unlimited abortion.
"Peace and Justice" are the answer not "law and order" Where is your "moral compass" here? "Criminals" have a "greater Right" than the people they rob and kill, where does that fall on your "moral value scale"?
Society has both the right and duty to protect itself from those who won't respect the rights of those around them. "Catch and release" doesn't meet that standard of protection, sometime "Justice" requires more than just locking a criminal up.
Science you brought the "pro-life" vs the death penalty issue op, let's ask the question a different way.
Why is it acceptable for doctors, because they took an oath to "do no harm" to perform assisted suicide? The same people who are against the State protecting us from criminals by using the death penalty are mostly for allowing assisted suicide and unlimited abortion.
"Peace and Justice" are the answer not "law and order" Where is your "moral compass" here? "Criminals" have a "greater Right" than the people they rob and kill, where does that fall on your "moral value scale"?
Society has both the right and duty to protect itself from those who won't respect the rights of those around them. "Catch and release" doesn't meet that standard of protection, sometime "Justice" requires more than just locking a criminal up.
Take medicine out of it entirely. No doctor, no nurse, just the executioner and his team. "End of life comfort measures" my foot! You're killing someone, taking a human life. Don't try to make yourselves feel better.
63
I'd go back to the firing squad. Or better, the noose. Fast, certain, rarely botched if you have competent people, and a loaded pistol standing by for the coup de grace if needed. No drugs not made in the US needed.
Don't look too deep on this story. Some people will do anything for a buck.
48
Shame on Dr. Musso. But I still don't get the point of this article or film. Would it be ok if the execution were performed by a robot?
8
They are hoping that those who feel strongly about the matter will take it on themselves to "discourage" Dr. Musso from participation.
"While working on this film, I was reminded of Stanley Milgram’s experiments on authority from the 1960s, which revealed how quickly most people betray their own morality in deference to authority. "
OK. You've made it that far. Now examine how doctors allow the practice of medicine to degrade to the point that they allow insurance company mandates and hospital administers, advised by lawyers, to tell them how to manage patient care. That oath to do no harm is quickly discarded in the every day practice of medicine in this country. Doctors kill their patients everyday of the week, but not so anyone would notice. They do it with in appropriate medicines and dosages, lack of care and surgical procedures. the elderly are especially targeted.
Medical error is the third leading cause of death in the USA.
OK. You've made it that far. Now examine how doctors allow the practice of medicine to degrade to the point that they allow insurance company mandates and hospital administers, advised by lawyers, to tell them how to manage patient care. That oath to do no harm is quickly discarded in the every day practice of medicine in this country. Doctors kill their patients everyday of the week, but not so anyone would notice. They do it with in appropriate medicines and dosages, lack of care and surgical procedures. the elderly are especially targeted.
Medical error is the third leading cause of death in the USA.
24
Curious comment. So you've defined a "problem" in your own mind at least. What does that great mind offer as a "solution"?
1
Wow. He opposes the death penalty but acknowledges that having medical participation in the process makes it more acceptable. Talk about cognitive dissonance.
Three things were not clear to me. First, did the doctor prepare or inject the drugs? Second, in what way did he comfort the condemned or ease the dying process? Is he saying he prefers lethal injection to electrocution?
Third, he is not only a doctor, he is a businessman; how much was he paid for attending executions? And if he had decided not to do it, would it have impacted establishing his business with the state correctional authority?
Three things were not clear to me. First, did the doctor prepare or inject the drugs? Second, in what way did he comfort the condemned or ease the dying process? Is he saying he prefers lethal injection to electrocution?
Third, he is not only a doctor, he is a businessman; how much was he paid for attending executions? And if he had decided not to do it, would it have impacted establishing his business with the state correctional authority?
55
MEM - Quite the opposite. But it is very common for people to use the term, "cognitive dissonance" inaccurately. It does not meant "irony," nor can it be assumed to exist in a mind every time there is some inconsistency in some system that mind participates in. People who claim to be concerned about the environment do not all rush to buy an electric car, animals lovers eat meat. YOU may suffer cognitive dissonance in this man's position, but his explanations are completely consistent, as is his overview of the totality of capital punishment under law in his state. That says his mind is not dissonant. In fact what I see in your post is thinking that is geared toward accusation.
All doctors are businessmen and when a bevy of them bankrupts you saving your life they may or may not trouble themselves about that later. They don't run around slapping cookies out of the hands of obese people, and like soldiers they don't approve of death just because it is part of their work.
All doctors are businessmen and when a bevy of them bankrupts you saving your life they may or may not trouble themselves about that later. They don't run around slapping cookies out of the hands of obese people, and like soldiers they don't approve of death just because it is part of their work.
12
Yes, what was his salary for doing this ? Sure has a beautiful home.
19
Yes and that shot was completely unnecessary for the story, it was bait to infer his income so that people would whine. Guess what? Doctors make money.
12