The American Board of Anesthesiologists (ABA), rep­re­sent­ing 40,000 mem­bers, recent­ly ruled that it will revoke the cer­ti­fi­ca­tion of any mem­ber who par­tic­i­pates in an exe­cu­tion by lethal injec­tion. Most hos­pi­tals require board cer­ti­fi­ca­tion for their anes­the­si­ol­o­gists. According to the board sec­re­tary Mark Rockoff, the deci­sion reflects the ABA’s belief that anes­the­si­ol­o­gists are ​“heal­ers, not exe­cu­tion­ers.” Some states have recruit­ed doc­tors, includ­ing anes­the­si­ol­o­gists, to play a role in lethal injec­tions. While not tak­ing a stance on cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment itself, the Board deci­sion assert­ed that the par­tic­i­pa­tion in exe­cu­tions by anes­the­si­ol­o­gists is uneth­i­cal. Rockoff also cit­ed patients’ exist­ing wari­ness of med­ical pro­ce­dures as anoth­er rea­son for the deci­sion: ​“When any of us go into surgery, it’s a fright­en­ing time. If lethal injec­tions are med­ical­ized, it could make it look like oper­at­ing rooms are like death cham­bers, that anes­the­si­ol­o­gy drugs are death drugs and anes­the­si­ol­o­gists are exe­cu­tion­ers. That would all under­mine pub­lic con­fi­dence in the med­ical pro­fes­sion.” Read the text of the ABA state­ment here.

California recent­ly issued new guide­lines for car­ry­ing out lethal injec­tions, rec­om­mend­ing a doc­tor’s pres­ence. Maryland is work­ing on a new pro­to­col. Ohio changed to a 1‑drug pro­to­col in 2009, while most states use a more com­pli­cat­ed 3‑drug pro­to­col. Washington state also recent­ly adopt­ed the 1‑drug pro­ce­dure. (R. Stein, ​“Group to cen­sure physi­cians who play role in lethal injec­tions,” Washington Post, May 2, 2010). See also Lethal Injections.

Citation Guide