The headline of this story (from an AP wire) in Greensboro's News & Record heralds, "Docs' Role In Executions Limited." The story was also reported in Raleigh's News & Observer in a little bit more detail.
"Limited to what?", seems to be the question.
Since firing squads and hanging and gas are out in our very civilized, merciful and "clean" society, the state of North Carolina (like most of the country) has turned to lethal injection. As I understand it, the drugs typically given are Sodium Thiopentol (a short/fast-acting barbituate that causes unconsciousness in about a minute), Pavulon or some other paralytic that stops breathing, and Potassium Chloride to stop the heart. The drugs are administered in sequence and at very short intervals, and are typically given through an elaborate mechanical syringe set-up after appropriate IV prep. The inmate is placed on a cardiorespiratory moniter.
North Carolina law states that a physician must be present at all executions. Creative lawyers for a condemned inmate recently argued that only an anesthesiologist could determine if part one of the "lethal cocktail" had worked as it should . . . and one had to present in order to make sure that the prisoner was truly unconscious before the rest of the deadly venous "punch" was delivered.
It was concluded that a prison doctor would suffice to meet the law's requirement.
BUT there's a little problem with the notion of an MD even being present at an execution (likely the lawyer's intent) because the Hippocratic Oath says, "First Do No Harm".
The legislators who signed off on this requirement (of course) did not give a rat's tail about a physician's ethical dilemas. In my experience, since "taking care of business" rules in this state, "medical ethics" hasn't been high on the list of things to consider.
Here's the NC Medical Board's new policy: "This board will not discipline licensees for merely being present at an execution. Any physician who engages in any verbal or physical activity that facilitates the execution may be subject to disciplinary action."
So according to the State of North Carolina, the doctor must be there when an inmate is put to death. But the North Carolina Medical Board (that fierce guardian of medical ethics) says that the physician cannot say or do anything without risking his/her medical license.
If there's a problem with "cocktail" and the prisoner is suffering (the reason, one would presume, that the state requires a physician's presence in the first place), the doctor must stand in the corner (or another room) and mercifully do/say nothing.
And one has to ask, is pronouncing someone dead a verbal activity that "facilitates" the execution? After all, the exectuion ain't over until the inmate is pronounced dead.
And let me ask you something else: WHERE was the NC Medical Board before this law got passed? WHERE "is" the NC Medical Board in terms of protecting the physicians it licenses (and thereby the public) from those who don't put medical ethics first?
Those who oppose capital punishment on all grounds, should be able to have a field day with this.
And they should. while I am an "Old-Testament" eye-for-an-eye girl when it comes to the dealth penalty, for too long lawmakers have white-washed what is going on. The state is taking a life. But hey, let's have a doctor there who can do nothing just so it will look pretty.
Some things are just ugly. They need to STAY ugly. It keeps us honest.
As for the NC Medical Board and medical ethics, there's a case in Asheboro I've wanted to discuss with them for a long time - about a Pediatrician in public service who was hung out to dry by a "non-profit" hospital out of control while a Licensing Board that "lacked jurisdiction" (in terms of defending duties they required) let her swing. My last request was made a week or so ago. The Board's chief lawyer (Thomas Mansfield) and Executive Director (David Henderson) have refused to take the meeting.
My question (to the doctors on the Board) is, "Where do they get off?".
And keep telling me that the NC Medical Board cares about ethics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
It is interesting the lack of response either here or at Ed's blog. I wonder if there is a message to be deduced.
Meblogin, your comment is published. You no doubt expected this to be a private jab that I would simply delete.
Perhaps the message to be deduced is that this is a very uncomfortable and unpleasant topic for people to talk about. Ed (the son of a physician) apparently found some wisdom in the post or he would not have linked it.
I'm neither grateful or ungrateful for the "attention". I'm learning the beauty of blogging for my own satisfaction. If people choose to chime in fine. If they don't, fine.
The Medical Board's position is nonsensical. What it should be doing is taking on a bad law - one that puts a physician in a position he/she should not be.
It's an ethical thing.
...sigh...I continue to be amazed at how you do the thinking for most of us and know what we are "really" thinking without bothering to ask or for that matter even consider the benefit of the doubt.
Double heavy sigh. It is "interesting" and "amazing" to me how YOU could post a comment that cannot be taken as anything other than mean-spirited snark, and not expect to be called on it.
One cannot "win" with you. I would be damned for not posting your comment, and now I am damned because I did and responded.
Another "message" occurred to me late last night - after discussing my adventures with the local blogging "community" (including the N&R's Editor) with friends. Maybe what might be deduced from the "lack of response" to this post is that there was nothing to argue with.
Re: "The benefit of the doubt", you're NOT talking about the merits of the post here. You haven't said one word pro or con.
If you have an opinion about that, I would be happy to engage. Apart from that you are wasing our time.
I believe I have said before...best of luck with your goals ...if not..Best of luck with your goals!!!
With regard to my earlier comment...I simply expected to see comments and did not and found it interesting. The rest of your thoughts and comments are yours alone.
Perhaps you are correct that your message was so clear that it required no response. I don't know and still find it curious.
I would be pleased and thankful if I were you that another chose to blog your cause and I have no idea why you would be neither grateful or ungrateful. I would be grateful and thankful.
My opinion----same as before...Good luck with your task.
With regard to---"Double heavy sigh. It is "interesting" and "amazing" to me how YOU could post a comment that cannot be taken as anything other than mean-spirited snark, and not expect to be called on it."
My advice to your comment is to ask a simple question before throwing the rock. It could just be that you are throwing the rock at someone that took the time to read your blog and offer a curious question.
Another question---Many have offered ideas to you and I don't recall you complimenting "any". Have you?
MeBlogin, I’ve heard “best of luck” from you/others quite a bit. But no, “What can we do to help?”. One is passive (and fairly useless as “help” goes) the other is sympathetic and proactive.
I’ve also heard lots of ideas since entering the blogosphere (most of which I’ve already had/considered/acted/commented upon – BECAUSE I’M NOT STUPID). With “ethics” all the rage, I would submit this novel “idea” to those so annoyed by my dogged pursuit of justice: “Why don’t we “help” Dr. Johnson by demanding that someone enforce the law here?”
Here’s another one: Shouldn’t we ask WHY some investigative journalistic attention hasn’t been afforded this “local” (not “dumb” at all) story? After all, newspapers are supposed to be our last common defense against corruption. Not where I live.
I’ve stopped trying to figure out Ed. He did his two hours of “research” by going to the newspapers that didn’t begin to tell the story in the first place. At least twice he’s quoted me out of context . . . without considering the crimes I have since discovered/reported (or apparently processing the explanation I offered). He’s also made it crystal clear he’s not interested in helping me – even though the approach I’ve taken to get some measure of justice out of a corrupt system is a story one would think a tech reporter/blogger would kill for. So allow me to be clear. By posting a link (or two), Ed Cone has in NO way taken on my cause.
On the other hand, I have made some great friends in the blogosphere. Plus writing and posting just for the joy/satisfaction of it, is working for me. So I do “complement” whoever offered that suggestion.
I personally did not expect to see comments on this thread. The Medical Board is an institution that traditionally does not find itself or its methods/actions questioned by the general public. And doctors don’t dare. In the case I wrote about, politicians (fending off lawyers dreaming up exotic reasons to attack the death penalty) threw “first do no harm” out the window and popped a law into place that put physicians in the middle. Like Jim Black’s eye exam law for kindergarteners (recently diluted and passed to save Mr. Black some face), putting a physician in an execution chamber was not vetted by physicians.
The question also begs, where were “the honorables” of the North Carolina Medical Board BEFORE this law was passed?
I suspect the answer is the same place they were when Randolph Hospital threw me out on the street for saving a child’s life and reporting another doctor’s bad behavior/care . . . the same place they were when the physician whose unprofessional conduct I reported completely disrupted the Board’s own review process by releasing confidential materials to those he shouldn’t have . . . the same place they’ve been since I discovered evidence of perjury, contempt and fraud. Threats, intimidation, and corrupt/unethical business practices that would do Enron proud . . . it’s all a-okay with the North Carolina Medical Board. They’re in the dark and under a desk and will not come out.
You see, the Medical Board has the jurisdiction to destroy those it licenses (for instance, if a physician does anything more than “observe” an execution, that doctor is going to face his/her own firing squad). But the Board does not have the jurisdiction to protect physicians when they fulfill the duties required of them by law and Oath. And honestly, by my experience, it doesn’t really care. After all, (1) the Medical Board is really run by lawyers, and (2) a new crop of docs comes out every year: fresh meat for the sharks and snakes. Change is turtle-slow in medicine, and anyone who challenges the status quo can be easily kicked to the curb.
There are many things the North Carolina Medical Board could be doing to help good physicians fend off the nastiness that has invaded our profession. Physicians are treated like commodities, and patients are caught in the middle. Peer review and physician employment laws in our business-rules-everything “right-to-work” state are screaming for reform. North Carolina is one of many states in a “malpractice crisis”. Where is the Medical Board?
I’ll tell you. They’re hunkered up in their bunker talking about sex, drugs and alcohol. As for that, has anyone ever supposed that everything I wrote about in the preceding paragraph might have something to do with why so many physicians turn to these things as a crutch? And maybe, just maybe, if we did something to fix some of that we wouldn’t have so many drunks, druggies and sex fiends practicing medicine? “Ethics” takes a distant fourth in the Medical Board’s priorities – as evidenced by the scramble now to deal with a law that should not be on the books.
I have a suggestion for you, MeBloggin. To avoid “rocks” being thrown you might think about the way you state your “interests” in the first place. I should not have to ask a question to ascertain what you mean.
I’ll also pose a question for you to ponder. In this eight-year-old extra-special medicolegal clusterscrew, how many hospital administrators, or federal & state officials, or physician “advocates” or lawyers or journalists have said to me, “My God. That is an awful thing for an physician to have gone through. It simply should not have happened. A child is alive because of what you did. Thank you for having been there! What can we do to help?”
Here’s your answer: I can count those folks – who said it and then did something about it – on one hand.
If it makes you feel better you can say, "Good Luck" one more time.
Post a Comment