Dr. Joel Zivot, an anes­the­si­ol­o­gist at Emory University, recent­ly wit­nessed an exe­cu­tion in Georgia and wrote about the pres­ence of two physi­cians dur­ing the lethal injec­tion he observed. He quot­ed the Medical Practice Act describ­ing the role of doc­tors as those ​“engaged in the diag­no­sis or treat­ment of dis­ease, defects, or injuries of human beings.” However, he not­ed, ​“Life is not a dis­ease, defect, or injury. Nothing in the Medical Practice Act autho­rizes a physi­cian to cure some­one of his life.” Dr. Zivot attrib­uted the lack of over­sight regard­ing the doc­tors’ par­tic­i­pa­tion to Georgia’s secre­cy law, which shields the iden­ti­ty of all exe­cu­tion par­tic­i­pants: ​“In Georgia, and in oth­er states that have secre­cy laws, med­ical boards are usurped and the state now autho­rizes what behav­ior con­sti­tutes accept­able med­ical prac­tice. This can­not be per­mit­ted. If the state pre­vents the board from reg­u­lat­ing cer­tain doc­tors, pub­lic health can be under­mined in secret. If the state has the pow­er to immu­nize physi­cians from over­sight of their peers and col­leagues, they have a ter­ri­ble pow­er to per­vert the deliv­ery of health­care for some bureau­crat’s idea of the pub­lic good. It is a hor­rif­ic prece­dent that can be abused, even with the best of intentions.”

During the exe­cu­tion, the par­tic­i­pa­tion of doc­tors was high­light­ed when a cor­rec­tions offi­cial faint­ed dur­ing the exe­cu­tion. Zivot asked, ​“I won­der why nei­ther of them has come to the aid of the uncon­scious officer.…Did the doc­tors over­see­ing the exe­cu­tion have qualms about help­ing some­one stay alive if it meant leav­ing their post that required them to mon­i­tor the killing of the inmate? Did a grotesque con­flict arise in this unlike­ly cir­cum­stance between their inter­est and their duty?”

(J. Zivot, ​“The White Coat: A Veil for State Killing?,” MedPage Today, August 17, 2014). See Lethal Injection and New Voices.

Citation Guide