Ethical Dying?

Mom sues over killer's 90-minute execution


TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) -- The mother of a condemned inmate whose execution took an hour longer than is typical sued the head of Ohio's prisons on Monday.
art.clark.ap.jpg

It took 90 minutes for Joseph Clark to die during his execution in May.

It took almost 90 minutes to carry out the execution of Joseph Clark in May 2006. The lawsuit, filed in a Cincinnati federal court, said the execution amounted to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment. Executions last about 20 minutes on average.

A message seeking comment was left for the prisons department Monday but was not returned.

In a separate lawsuit, a group of 15 inmates are challenging the state's injection process, arguing the procedure may cause prisoners to suffer during an execution.

Prison staff had problems finding a useable vein on Clark, and one vein they did use collapsed. The execution team also apparently tried to administer the lethal drugs through the original IV line by mistake, according to written accounts that the execution team is required to submit.

During the first injection attempt, Clark finally pushed himself up and said, "It don't work."

During the second attempt at finding a vein, he asked, "Can you just give me something by mouth to end this?"

Clark, 57, was sentenced to die in November 1984 for killing gas station attendant David Manning in Toledo.

The problems during the execution led the state to change its lethal injection process to ensure that veins can be found more carefully and quickly to avoid similar delays.

But in May, an execution team again struggled to find veins in another inmate's arm. Christopher Newton died nearly two hours after the scheduled start of his execution.

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

This issue about finding the vein of the condemned is why in some states in the US, they are trying to enlist the co-operation of anesthesiologists in carrying out the execution. This is because cannulating a vein is the expertise of the profession. It is usually easy to do. However, in some case it can prove impossible and even anesthesiologists find it a great challenge to do so.

Those who are supporting the involvement say that it is justified because the condemned can have an easier death. The physician can facilitate a painless and smooth death. Not to do so, would have them suffered the fate of those in the above article.

Those who are against, object on the ground that the main duty of a physician is to preserve life, and not kill it. The question is that, "if you know that your doctor kills for a living, would you also trust him to save your life?" Would the physician's judgment be clouded over time? The Nazis doctors who participated in gassing the millions of Jews use the same justification as the above. The Jews would have to die anyway, so might as well give them a painless death. They observed that those who were gassed to death "looks peaceful". So, were the Nazis doctors right in doing so? Execution used to be done in front of a firing squad by soldiers. The reason it had stopped was that the soldiers would suffered severe psychological disturbances over a period of time, and could not continue to carry out that duty. Therefore executions are being sanitised and changed to death by injections.

So, what is your verdict? Anyone care to comment? Should physicians be involved in executions?

Just a thought. In the age of globalisation, perhaps these condemned prisoners can be shipped of to China. They loved to execute prisoners there and sell of the body parts. That, however, is another different debate altogether...........