Last spring I wrote about the superb documentary At the Death House Door when I interviewed its subject, Pastor Carroll Pickett, who served 15 years as the death house chaplain to the infamous "Walls" prison unit in Huntsville. The film was the first-time direction collaboration between award-winning directors Steve James ("Hoop Dreams") and Peter Gilbert ("Vietnam: Long Time Coming"). James was nice enough to answer some of my questions about the film.
How did you first hear about Pastor Carroll Pickett?
Steve James: Gordon Quinn at our film company Kartemquin was approached by The Chicago Tribune because they thought we would be interested in doing a film focused entirely on the investigation of the Carlos De Luna case by Steve Mills and Maurice Possley. Gordon knew that Peter and I would be interested in the subject and set up a meeting with the reporters. In the course of telling us about De Luna, they also mentioned Pastor Carroll Pickett who had been haunted by the memory of De Luna, and recorded these feelings in an amazing audio tape about the execution right afterwards. When they revealed he'd recorded audio tapes about all 95 executions he'd
ministered to, we were hooked. We decided from the get-go, that we wanted Rev. Pickett's journey to be our main story, and bring us to why De Luna was so important to him.
What was your original intention for the film and how did it evolve?
SJ: See answer above... As stated, the original intention of the Tribune was to have us do a film about Carlos De Luna, but its hard to do a film about a man who was not famous or led a well-documented life, and who was executed 17 years before. With the mention of Pickett, it was clear that we had a unique and potentially powerful story to tell about a man's past and also who he is today. This is one time when the original conception of what the film could be was pretty much on target for what the film ultimately became.But that doesn't mean that the filmmaking process did not evolve. We didn't anticipate guard Fred Allen, nor Carlos' sister Rose, nor Carroll's family and the significance they would all play in the film. Nor did we anticipate just how closed and "well armored" Carroll was as a person and how this film would ultimately - in his words - prove to be "the therapy he never got."
What films inspired you to create documentaries? What documentaries most influenced your approach?
SJ: I was initially influenced by fiction films - one director in particular whose work was always characterized by complex portrayals of his subjects. That director was the great Jean Renoir, director of such classics as The Rules of the Game
Why is the Carlos DeLuna story so central to the film? How important to the question of the death penalty is the issue of possible innocence of some of the condemned?
SJ: We certainly could have made the entire film about Carroll Pickett, and some people have suggested we should have. I think including De Luna as a significant part of the film allowed us to delve deeper into the life of one of the 95 men Pickett was with. And it allowed us to do so with the single most important inmate in Pickett's life. Carlos had the greatest impact on Pickett because he was young, and vulnerable, and innocent. One can't overstate the importance of how flawed the system is when it executes the innocent, but Pickett grew to believe that executing the guilty is wrong as well. Carlos' story also allows us to see the ripple effect of one execution on the lives of so many people - Pastor Pickett, Carlos' family, and even a reporter who was looking for a scoop but ended up with a real relationship and profound regrets.
What is the most important contribution a death row pastor can make?
SJ: I think Pastor Pickett's greatest contribution to the inmates was to be there for the men and help them navigate one of the most difficult and unimaginable acts one can face. There's real value in that regardless of one's position on the death penalty. I think Pickett's greater societal contribution has been to speak honestly and painfully about that time, and how he slowly changed from supporter of the death penalty to activist against it.
Why include scenes from his home life?
SJ: We initially intended to deal with his failed marriage because it was the catalyst which sent him to work at the prison in the first place. We did not expect the scenes with his kids when they happened. We were as surprised as the audience is watching the film, to learn that the family to that day had never really talked about the work he did. And we were shocked to learn that they didn't even know of the existence of the tapes. Those scenes reveal something about how closed Carroll was and still remains, and how much he and his family avoided dealing with this job he had. One great result of that filming and the film itself, is that the family is much closer than they've ever been.
How have you responded to the advocates for the death penalty who criticize the film?
SJ: Most supporters of the death penalty who criticize the film think we should have shown family victims speaking out against the convicts who were put to death. They want a kind of "journalistic balance." That's a fair criticism, I guess. But we felt that Pickett himself represented that point of view powerfully when he spoke about wanting to see Cuevas die for his role in the prison siege which killed members of Pickett's church. His own long journey from being pro-death penalty to anti-death penalty was the primary story of this film. So this film has a clear point of view, but we tried not to ram it down people's throats and we also tried to show sensitivity to the anger people feel when loved ones are murdered.
Why is the US the only major developed nation that still has the death penalty?
SJ: I don't feel equipped to answer this question, but suspect it has something to do with our unique history and national identity which is still governed by notions of "frontier justice" and "eye-for-an-eye" beliefs. America has always been a "gun culture" and where there's guns, there's violence and murder. Our collective fascination with violence and retribution probably have something to do with our attitudes towards the death penalty.
The good news is that the death penalty seems to be in retreat around the country. Outside of Texas, Virginia and a few other states, there aren't many states executing people these days. I am hopeful that we as a nation will continue to head in that direction.
Is there one theme or story that draws you to a project?
SJ: I find that I inevitably am drawn to people who's lives are at some significant turning point, whether its two young black kids trying to make a basketball dream come true for themselves and their families in Hoop Dreams
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Mr. James says: "I think Pickett's greater societal contribution has been to speak honestly and painfully about that time".
It is hard to imagine how Mr. James could possibly know about Rev Pickett's honesty.
Can Rev. Carroll Pickett be trusted "At the Death House Door"?
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
To: Film schools, festivals, institutes, websites and reviewers, worldwide
Distributed since May, 2008
Rev. Pickett is on a promotional tour for the anti death penalty film "At the Death House Door". It is partially about the Reverend's experience ministering to 95 death row inmates executed in Texas.
Rev. Pickett's inaccuracies are many and important.
Does Rev. Pickett just make facts up as he goes along, hoping that no one fact checks, or is he just confused or ignorant?
Some of his miscues are common anti death penalty deceptions. The reverend is an anti death penalty activist.
Below are comments or paraphrases of Rev. Pickett, taken from interviews, followed by my Reply:.
1) Pickett: (In 1989) "I was so 100% certain that he couldn't have committed this crime. (Carlos) was a super person to minister to. I knew Carlos was not guilty. " "I knew (executed inmate) Carlos (De Luna) didn't do it." (1)
REPLY: There is this major problem. It appears that Rev. Pickett is, now, either lying about his own 1989 opinions or he is very confused.
In 1999, 4 years after Rev. Pickett had left his death row ministry, and he had become an anti death penalty activist, and 10 years after De Luna's execution, the reverend was asked, in a PBS Frontline interview,
"Do you think there have been some you have watched die who were strictly innocent?"
Pickett's reply: "I never felt that."(2)
For at least 15 years, Pickett never felt that any of the 95 executed were actually innocent.
This directly conflicts with his current statements on Carlos De Luna. Rev. Pickett is, now, saying that he was 100% sure of De Luna's innocence in 1989!
If he was 100% sure of DeLuna's execution in 1989, what's up with the PBS interview?.
How could Rev. Pickett forget the only "innocent" person he saw executed - he was 100% sure of his innocence - on his watch? Wouldn't anyone find that to be 100% impossible to forget, particularly when you are asked, specifically, about it during a formal interview?
When is the first confirmable date that Rev. Pickett stated he believed in DeLuna's actual innocence?
It appears the reverend has either revised history to support his new anti death penalty activism - he's lying - or he is, again, very confused. Reverend?
2) Sara Hickman, musician, anti death penalty activist, and acquaintance of Pickett's, wrote " . . . Rev. Carroll Pickett (the death row minister who witnessed 95 executions in Huntsville; he is convinced that at least 15 of those men were innocent),. . . ". (3)
Reply: In 1999 Rev. Pickett didn't believe any of those 95 executed were innocent, now, in 2008, he is convinced that 15 innocents were executed. Quite remarkable, if true.
Rev. Pickett can you tell us which 15 you are convinced were executed innocents? And what is your evidence? Or did Ms. Hickman get it wrong? Reverend?
I have inquired with Ms. Hickman (sara@sarahickman.com) and Rev Pickett
(carrollpickett57@gmail.com) but, so far, no reply.
3) Introduction: In 1974, prison librarian Judy Standley and teacher Von Beseda were murdered during an 11 day prison siege and escape attempt. Ignacio Cuevas was sentenced to death, as one of three prisoners who were involved. The other two died in the shootout.
Ms. Standley and Ms. Beseda were part of Rev. Pickett's congregation, outside of prison.
Pickett: After Cuevas was executed, Rev. Pickett alleges that he met with Judy Standley's family and they told the reverend that "This (the execution) didn't bring closure." "This didn't help us." According to Rev. Pickett, "They didn't want him (Ignacio Cuevas) executed." (1)
Reply; There might be a big problem. Judy Standley's five children wrote a statement, before the execution, which stated: "We are relieved the ordeal may almost be over, but we are also aware that to some, this case represents only one of many in which, arguably, `justice delayed is justice denied," "We are hopeful the sentence will finally be carried out and that justice will at last be served," said the statement, signed by Ty, Dru, Mark, Pam and Stuart Standley. (4)
Sure seemed like the kids wanted Cuevas to be executed. Doesn't it? Reverend?
4) Pickett: spoke of the Soldier of Fortune murder for hire case, stating the husband got the death penalty, while the hired murderer got 6 years. (1)
Reply: Rev. Pickett's point, here, appears to be the unfairness of the sentence disparity. More fact problems. John Wayne Hearn, the hitman, was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Sandra Black.
5) Pickett: "A great majority of them (the 95 executed inmates he ministered to) were black or Hispanic." (1)
Reply: The reverend's point, here, appears to emphasize the alleged racist nature of the death penalty. There is a problem for the reverend- the facts - the "great majority" were 47 white (49%) with 32 black (34%), and 16 Hispanic (17%).
6) Pickett: "Out of the 95 we executed only one that had a college degree. All the rest of them their education was 9th grade and under." (1)
Reply: Not even close. Rev. Pickett's point, here, seems to be that capital murderers are, almost all, idiots who can't be held responsible for their actions. But, there are more fact problems for the reverend. In a review of only 31 of the 95 cases, 5 had some college or post graduate classes and 16 were high school graduates or completed their GED. Partial review (Incomplete Count) , below.
Would Rev. Pickett tell us about the educational achievements of all the true innocent murder victims and those that weren't old enough for school?
7) Pickett: believes that, no way, could someone, so afraid of lightning and thunder, such as Carlos De Luna, use a knife (in a crime). (1)
Reply: Is the reverend not aware of DeLuna's record? In 1980, "De Luna was charged with attempted aggravated rape and driving a stolen vehicle, he pleaded no contest and was sentenced to 2 to 3 years. Paroled in May 1982, De Luna returned to Corpus Christi. Not long after, he attended a party for a former cellmate and was accused of attacking the cellmate's 53-year-old mother. She told police that De Luna broke three of her ribs with one punch, removed her underwear, pulled down his pants, then suddenly left. He was never prosecuted for the attack, but authorities sent him back to prison on a parole violation. Released again in December of that year, he came back to Corpus Christi and got a job as a concrete worker. Almost immediately, he was arrested for public intoxication. During the arrest, De Luna allegedly laughed about the wounding of a police officer months earlier and said the officer should have been killed. Two weeks after that arrest, Lopez was murdered." (Chicago Tribune) Being a long time criminal, we can presume that there were numerous additional crimes committed by De Luna and which remained unsolved.
Was De Luna capable of committing a robbery murder, even though he had big brown eyes and was scared of lightning? Of course. Rev. Pickett?
8) Pickett: speaks of how sincere hostage taker, murderer Ignacio Cuevas was. Rev. Pickett states that "between 11 and midnight (I) believe almost everything" the inmates say, because they are about to be executed. (1)
Reply: Bad judgement. Minutes later, Cuevas lied when on the gurney, stating that he was innocent. This goes to show how Rev. Pickett and many others are easily fooled by these murderers. Pickett concedes the point.
9) Pickett: "In my opinion and in the opinion of the convicts, life in prison, with no hope of parole, is a much worse punishment (than the death penalty)." "Most of these people (death row inmates) fear life in prison more than they do the possibility of execution." (5)
REPLY: More fact problems. We know that isn't the opinion of those facing a possible death sentence of those residing on death row. This gives more support to my suspicion that Rev. Pickett is putting words into the inmates' mouths.
Facts: What percentage of capital murderers seek a plea bargain to a death sentence, rather than seeking a life sentence? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment. What percentage of convicted capital murderers argue for execution in the penalty phase of their capital trial? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment. What percentage of death row inmates waive their appeals and speed up the execution process? Nearly zero (less than 2%). They prefer long term imprisonment. This is not, even remotely, in dispute. How could Rev. Pickett not be aware of this? How long was he ministering to Texas' death row? 13 years? So, what? Did he just make this up?
10) Pickett: stated that "doctors can't (check the veins of inmates pending execution), it's against the law." (1)
Reply: Ridiculous. Obviously untrue.
11) Pickett: Pavulon (a paralytic) has been banned by vets but we use it on people. (1)
REPLY: This is untrue and is a common anti death penalty deception. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) states, "When used alone, these drugs (paralytics) all cause respiratory arrest before loss of consciousness, so the animal may perceive pain and distress after it is immobilized." Obviously, paralytics are never used alone in the human lethal injection process or animal euthanasia. The AVMA does not mention the specific paralytic - Pavulon - used in lethal injection for humans. These absurd claims, falsely attributed to veterinary literature, have been a bald faced lie by anti death penalty activists.
In Belgium and the Netherlands, their euthanasia protocol is as follows: A coma is first induced by intravenous administration of 20 mg/kg sodium thiopental (Nesdonal) (NOTE-the first drug in human lethal injection) in a small volume (10 ml physiological saline). Then a triple intravenous dose of a non-depolarizing neuromuscular muscle relaxant is given, such as 20 mg pancuronium bromide (Pavulon) (NOTE-the second drug, the paralytic, in human lethal injection) or 20 mg vecuronium bromide (Norcuron). The muscle relaxant should preferably be given intravenously, in order to ensure optimal availability (NOTE: as in human lethal injection). Only for pancuronium bromide (Pavulon) are there substantial indications that the agent may also be given intramuscularly in a dosage of 40 mg. (NOTE: That is how effective the second drug in human lethal injection is, that it can be given intramuscularly and still hasten death).
Just like execution/lethal injection in the US, although we give a third drug which speeds up death, even more.
12) Pickett: "Most of the inmates would ask the question, "How can Texas kill people who kill people and tell people that killing people is wrong?" That came out of inmates’ mouths regularly and I think it’s a pretty good question to ask." (5)
REPLY: Most? Would that be more than 47 out of 95? I simply don't believe it. 10 out of 95? Doubtful. I suspect it is no coincidence that "Why do we kill people to show that killing is wrong" has been a common anti death penalty slogan for a very long time. I suspect that Rev. Pickett has just picked it up, used it and placed it in inmate's mouths. Furthermore, we don't execute murderers to show that murder is wrong. Most folks know that murder is wrong even without a sanction.
13) Pickett: said an inmate said "its burning" "its burning", during an execution. (1)
REPLY: This may have occurred for a variety of reasons and does not appear to be an issue. It is the third drug which is noted for a burning sensation, if one were conscious during its injection. However, none of the inmates that Rev. Pickett handled were conscious after the first drug was administered. That would not be the case, here, as the burning complaints came at the very beginning of the injection process, which would involve a reaction where the burning would be quite minor. Has Rev. Pickett reviewed the pain and suffering of the real victims - the innocent murdered ones?
Bottom line. Reverend Pickett's credibility is as high as a snakes belly.
Time to edit the movie?!
------------
Incomplete count
this is a review of 31 out of the 95 death row inmates ministered by Rev. Pickett
21 of the 31 below had some college or post graduate classes (5)
or were high school graduates or completed their GED (16)
-----------
1) Brooks 12
3) O'Bryan post graduate degree - dentist
41 James Russel 10th
42 G Green sophomore college
45 David Clark 10th and GED
46 Edward Ellis 10th
47 Billy White 10th
48 Justin May 11th
49 Jesus Romero 11th and GED
50 Robert Black, Jr. a pilot (probably beyond 12th)
55. Carlos Santana 11th
57 Darryl Stewart 12th
58 Leonel Herrera 11th and GED
60) Markum Duff Smith Post graduate College
33) Carlos De Luna 9th
95 Ronald Keith Allridge 10th and GED
93 Noble Mays Junior in College
92 Samuel Hawkins 12th
91 Billy Conn Gardner 12th
90 Jeffery Dean Motley 9th
89 Willie Ray Williams 11th
86 Jesse Jacobs 12th
85 Raymond Carl Kinnamon 11th and GED
84 Herman Clark sophomore college
83 Warren Eugene Bridge 11th
82 Walter Key Williams 12th
72 Harold Barnard 12th
73 Freddie Webb 11th and GED
75 Larry Anderson 12th
77 Stephen Nethery 12th
79 Robert Drew 10th
1) "Chaplain Discusses 'Death House' Ministry", Interview, Legal Affairs, FRESH AIR, NPR, May 19, 2007.
2) "The Execution: Interview with Reverend Carroll Pickett", PBS, FRONTLINE, 1999
www(DOT)pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/execution/readings/pickett.html
3) "Hickman: Texas needs to start a dialogue on the death penalty", OTHER TAKES, Austin American-Statesman, July 30, 2008
4) "Appellate court refuses to stay killer's execution", Kathy Fair, HOUSTON CHRONICLE, Section A, Page 1, 2 Star edition, 05/23/1991
5) THE FAILURE INTERVIEW: REVEREND CARROLL PICKETT—AUTHOR OF "WITHIN THESE WALLS: MEMOIRS OF A DEATH HOUSE CHAPLAIN" Interview, by Kathleen A. Ervin
www(DOT) failuremag.com/arch_history_carroll_pickett_interview.html
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally
Dear Ms. Minow:
China, Singapore, and Japan are all "major developed nations" which have the death penalty.
However, I don't think that either "major" of "developed" really matters. Such characterizations and/or sound bites, likes those from Mr. James, below, rarely address the underlying philosphical discussions, which go beyond the weightless "major developed".
Mr. James thinks that because the US is rooted in "frontier justice" and "eye-for-an-eye" beliefs that such explain why the US has the death penalty. What about all of the other countries that have the death penalty? Do they have it for those same "US reasons"? What explains that the majority of the populations of Western Europe supported the execution of Saddam Hussein? Does it explain why 81% of Connecticut citizens supported the decision of rapist/serial murderer Michael Ross to waive appeals and e executed? It is not at all uncommon for the majority of populations to support the death penalty in countries that do not have it.
People who support the death penalty support it for the same reason that other, lesser sentences are supported, because it is found to be a just and appropriate sanction for the crime committed.
Dudley Sharp is a dubious source for information on the Death Penalty. He has no credentials to speak of other than his self-proclamations. As a former corrections classification worker who reviewed thousands of records, I can tell you that "the worst of the worst" are not housed on Death Row. For that reason and many others, I believe the Death Penalty is unjust. Both the American Bar Association and American Medical Association have questioned the ethics of state-sponsored killing euphemistically called capital punishment. In North Carolina, the state medical board argued that medical participation in the Death Penalty was unethical. Clearly, the trend world-wide and nation-wide has been to abolish the Death Penalty.
To: Dahn Shaulis, aka Vegas Quixote, vegasquixote or theamericaninjusticesystem
As you know, I am an expert on the death penalty and never claim any credentials other than knowledge.
I fully contradicted the ABA's death penalty position in "ABA's Proposed Moratorium Relies on Flimsy Facts", The Texas Lawyer, March 16, 1997. An article showing how inaccurate and misleading the American Bar Association was in their foundation in asking for a moratorium on executions.
The North Carolina courts have found agsint the medical board for obvious reasons.
Execution: No Ethical/Medical Dilemma
The Hippocratic Oath and "Do No Harm" have nothing to do with executions
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
Some physicians, medical boards and medical associations have attempted to create an ethical prohibition against medical professionals involvement in state executions by invoking the famous "do no harm" credo and words within the Hippocratic Oath.
Neither reference is in the context of the state execution of murderers.
THE OATH OF HIPPOCRATES
The select Hippocratic Oath quote, in its original (translated) form, is "I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; . . " (1)
is a prohibition against euthanasia and has nothing to do with a medical prohibition of participation in state sanctioned executions.
I am unaware of any other ancient texts or translations which indicate a historical context, with that quote, that prohibits physicians from participation in executions.
Dr. Merkel, a medical historian, writes, "There are two highly controversial vows in the original Hippocratic Oath that we continue to ponder and struggle with as a profession: the pledges never to participate in euthanasia and abortion." (2)
They are highly controversial, now, because they are, simply, inconvenient. The article never mentions a context of state execution of murderers, because the oath has nothing to do with it.
Dr. Merkel continues: "The Hippocratics' reasons for refusing to participate in euthanasia may have been based on a philosophical or moral belief in preserving the sanctity of life or simply on their wish to avoid involvement in any act of assisted suicide, murder, or manslaughter." (2)
Dr. Markel is speculating. What we do know is that it was a reference to euthanasia, specifically. There is not even speculation that the reference had anything to do with the state execution of murderers.
The following are " . . .the results of a study . . . in which 157 deans of allopathic and osteopathic schools of medicine in Canada and the United States were surveyed regarding the use of the Hippocratic Oath": (3)
1. In 1993, 98% of schools administered some form of the Oath.
2. In 1928, only 26% of schools administered some form of the Oath.
3. Only 1 school used the original Hippocratic Oath.
4. 68 schools used versions of the original Hippocratic Oath.
5. 100% of current Oaths pledge a commitment to patients.
6. Only 43% vow to be accountable for their actions.
7. 14% include a prohibition against euthanasia.
8. Only 11% invoke a diety.
9. 8% prohibit abortion.
10. Only 3% prohibit sexual contact with patients.
There is no mention of the state execution of murderers, because the Hippocratic Oath has nothing to do with it. We can all see the tough struggle with euthanasia and abortion.
It is hard to find a credible ethical core, when only 43% of those medical institutions and their physicians commit to being accountable for their medical treatments, while, at the same time, 100% pledge a commitment to patients.
DO NO HARM
The famous physician credo "First, do no harm" (a phrase translated into Latin as "Primum non nocere") is often mistakenly ascribed to the (Hippocratic) oath, although it appears nowhere in that venerable pledge." (2)
"Hippocrates came closest to issuing this directive in his treatise Epidemics, in an axiom that reads, "As to disease, make a habit of two things — to help, or at least, to do no harm." (2)
"As to disease". Nothing else.
There is no relevance outside medicine and, most certainly, no prohibition against medical professionals participation in the state execution of murderers.
Those ethical codes pertain to the medical profession, only, and to patients, only. Judicial execution is not part of the medical profession and death row inmates are not patients. Is that news?
The acknowledged anti death penalty editors of The Public Library of Science (PLoS) Medicine agree. They write:
"Execution by lethal injection, even if it uses tools of intensive care such as intravenous tubing and beeping heart monitors, has the same relationship to medicine that an executioner's axe has to surgery." ("Lethal Injection Is Not Humane", PLoS, 4/24/07).
The PLoS Medicine editors have made the same point many of us have been making - To put it clearly: The state execution of murderers is not equivalent or connected to the medical treatment of patients. There is no ethical or moral connection. Hardly a mystery.
Similar acts and similar equipment do not establish any ethical equivalence or connection. Any rational person can see that the state execution of murderers is not a medical treatment, but a criminal justice sanction. The basis for medical treatment is to improve the plight of the patient, for which the medical profession provides obvious and daily exceptions. The basis for execution is to carry out a criminal justice sentence where death is the sanction.
Doctors and nurses can be police and soldiers and can kill, when deemed appropriate, within those lines of duty and without violating the ethical codes of their medical profession. Similarly, medical professionals do not violate their codes of ethics, when participating in the state execution of murderers.
Physicians are often part of double or triple blind studies where there is hope that the tested drugs may, someday, prove beneficial. The physicians and other researchers know that many patients, taking placebos or less effective drugs, will suffer more additional harm or death because they are not taking the subject drug or that the subject drug will actually harm or kill more patients than the placebo of other drugs used in the study.
Physicians knowingly harm individual patients, in direct contradiction to their "do no harm" oath.
For the greater good, those physicians sacrifice innocent, willing and brave patients. Of course, there have been medical experiments without consent and, even, today, they continue ("Critical Care Without Consent", Washington Post, May 27, 2007; Page A01).
Physicians knowingly make exceptions to their "do no harm" requirement, every day, within their profession, where that code actually does apply. And, they should. There are obvious ethical nuances and we should consider and pay attention to them, as is done within the medical profession.
SEE DO NO HARM: Additional Notes, at bottom.
Justice, deterrence, retribution, just punishments, upholding the social contract, saving innocent life, etc., are all recognized as aspects of the death penalty, all dealing with the greater good.
Are murderers on death row willing participants? Of course. They willingly committed the crime and, therefore, willingly exposed themselves to the social contract of that jurisdiction.
Physicians and medical institutions will pick and chose those ethical foundations which they, from time to time and issue to issue, find convenient and, hopefully, important.
Stop the ridiculous ethical posturing and just tell the truth, as in "Some of us just don't like the death penalty."
Any participation in executions by medical professionals should be a matter for their own personal conscience. In fact, 20-40% of doctors surveyed would participate in the execution process.
There is no ethical prohibition against medical professionals participating in executions. Stop using personal bias to create professional, ethical prohibitions.
It's unethical.
--------------
1) Original Oath of Hippocrates
http://www.imagerynet.com/hippo.orig.html
2) "'I Swear by Apollo' - On Taking the Hippocratic Oath", New England Journal of Medicine, May 13, 2004 article, by Howard Markel, PhD, MD, Director of the Center for the History of Medicine at the University of Michigan Medical School
3) "The Use of the Hippocratic Oath: A Review of 20th Century Practice and a Content Analysis of Oaths Administered in Medical Schools in the U.S. and Canada in 1993." by Robert D. Orr, M.D. and Norman Pang, M.D. http://www.imagerynet.com/hippo.ama.html
------------------------------
DO NO HARM: Additional Notes:
40,000 to 100,000 innocents die, every year, in the US because of medical misadventure or improper medical treatment. (4)
It appears that some 500-1000 innocent patients die, every year, in the US, due to some type of medical misadventure, with anesthesia. (4)
There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US since 1900.
Furthermore, even with errors in lethal injection, those cases resulted in the death of the inmate - the intended outcome for the guilty murderer.
In the errors of medical professionals, we are speaking of a large number of deaths and injuries to innocent patients - the opposite of the intended outcome.
4) "Deaths from Medical Misadventure"at
www(dot)wrongdiagnosis.com/m/medical_misadventure/deaths.htm
and
"Health Grades Quality Study: Patient Safety in American Hospitals, July 2004"
www.(dot)healthgrades.com/media/english/pdf/HG_Patient_Safety_Study_Final.pdf
The following is a Dutch protocol for parenteral (intravenous) administration to obtain euthanasia:
Intravenous administration is the most reliable and rapid way to accomplish euthanasia and therefore can be safely recommended. A coma is first induced by intravenous administration of 20 mg/kg sodium thiopental (Nesdonal) in a small volume (10 ml physiological saline). Then a triple intravenous dose of a non-depolarizing neuromuscular muscle relaxant is given, such as 20 mg pancuronium bromide (Pavulon) or 20 mg vecuronium bromide (Norcuron). The muscle relaxant should preferably be given intravenously, in order to ensure optimal availability. Only for pancuronium bromide (Pavulon) are there substantial indications that the agent may also be given intramuscularly in a dosage of 40 mg.
wweek.com/___ALL_OLD_HTML/euthanasics.html
originally written May, 2005. Updated as merited.
copyright 2005-2009 Dudley Sharp - Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.