Dr. Orin Guidry, pres­i­dent of the 40,000-member American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), issued a pub­lic state­ment strong­ly urg­ing mem­bers to ​“steer clear” of any par­tic­i­pa­tion in exe­cu­tions by lethal injec­tion. In a four-page ​“Message from the President,” Guidry not­ed that anes­the­si­ol­o­gists have been ​“reluc­tant­ly thrust into the mid­dle” of the legal con­tro­ver­sy over lethal injec­tions. In recent months, the pro­ce­dures being used around the United States have been chal­lenged because they may result in unnec­es­sary and excru­ci­at­ing pain in vio­la­tion of the ban on cru­el and unusual punishment. 

Guidry’s announce­ment came after U.S. District Judge Fernando Gaitan Jr. ordered a halt to exe­cu­tions in Missouri until the state makes major changes in its lethal injec­tion pro­ce­dures. In that rul­ing, Gaitan said that a board-cer­ti­fied anes­the­si­ol­o­gist needs to cer­ti­fy that an inmate has achieved suf­fi­cient anes­thet­ic depth so as to not feel undue pain when the remain­ing drugs from the lethal injec­tion cock­tail are inject­ed. Gaitan’s order stat­ed that an anes­the­si­ol­o­gist would be ​“respon­si­ble for the mix­ing of all drugs which are used in the lethal injec­tion process” and would either admin­is­ter the drugs him­self or ​“direct­ly observe those indi­vid­u­als who do so.”

In response to Gaitan’s rul­ing, Guidry remind­ed mem­bers that the ASA has adopt­ed the American Medical Association’s posi­tion that doc­tors should not par­tic­i­pate in exe­cu­tions. Guidry wrote, ​“Clearly, an anes­the­si­ol­o­gist com­ply­ing with the Missouri rul­ing — and despite the court’s posi­tion on eth­i­cal oblig­a­tions — would be vio­lat­ing the AMA posi­tion which ASA has adopt­ed. It is my belief that the court can­not mod­i­fy physi­cians’ eth­i­cal prin­ci­ples to meet its needs.”

(Los Angeles Times, July 2, 2006). Read the full text of Dr. Guidry’s ​“Message from the President.”
See Methods of Execution. See also New Voices.

Tags
Citation Guide