A recent edi­to­r­i­al in Nature, the inter­na­tion­al week­ly jour­nal of sci­ence, called on sci­en­tists and doc­tors to refuse to par­tic­i­pate in exe­cu­tions: ​“Don’t advise, don’t pre­scribe, don’t inject. Let the death penal­ty die a nat­ur­al death.” Noting that courts are now con­sid­er­ing whether the death penal­ty by lethal injec­tion should be out­lawed as inhu­mane, the edi­to­r­i­al points out that the pro­ce­dure was large­ly devel­oped with­out the input of physi­cians, nurs­es, or sci­en­tists. It also notes that research has shown that pris­on­ers might still be con­scious, though par­a­lyzed, when potas­si­um chlo­ride goes through their veins and stops their heart. Their edi­to­r­i­al states:

Can the death penal­ty by lethal injec­tion, as prac­ticed in 37 US states, be out­lawed as inhu­mane? The courts are con­sid­er­ing this ques­tion, which can be sep­a­rat­ed from the more famil­iar one about the moral­i­ty of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment.

Their judge­ments are com­pli­cat­ed by the fact that, since the pro­ce­dure came into use three decades ago, few physi­cians, nurs­es, or sci­en­tists have had any­thing to do with it. Physicians and nurs­es are eth­i­cal­ly barred from assist­ing. Yet it is the dom­i­nant method in the United States, and has been used to kill more than 800 pris­on­ers there.

Some infor­ma­tion has emerged on the work­ings of the three-drug injec­tion, how­ev­er. One analy­sis (L.G. Koniaris et al. Lancet 365, 1412 – 1414; 2005) sug­gests that 43% of pris­on­ers might still be con­scious, although total­ly paral­ysed, when the potas­si­um chlo­ride rips through their veins on the way to stop­ping their heart.

There are pow­er­ful argu­ments for aban­don­ing the death penal­ty, regard­less of its moral­i­ty. DNA, for exam­ple, has helped prove many death-row inmates inno­cent, expos­ing the flaws of an irre­versible sanc­tion. And sta­tis­ti­cal analy­ses indi­cate that the death penal­ty is dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly admin­is­tered to minor­i­ty pop­u­la­tions.

Earlier this year, a California court told state author­i­ties that they must per­suade an anaes­thetist to over­see an exe­cu­tion, come up with a new pro­to­col for lethal injec­tions — or face a hear­ing on whether the pun­ish­ment is inhu­mane. The last option looks like­ly.

If suit­ably qual­i­fied indi­vid­u­als refuse to help pre­pare a new pro­to­col, the state will face the prospect of con­tin­u­ing to use ama­teurs to kill peo­ple with arbi­trary and out­mod­ed tech­nol­o­gy.

Scientists often abjure polit­i­cal activ­i­ties, and could in this case argue that they are mere­ly pro­vid­ing a basis from which police-mak­ers can make deci­sions. But this deci­sion must be tak­en by the physi­cians and sci­en­tists them­selves. All that is required is a refusal to par­tic­i­pate. Men and women of sci­ence and med­i­cine should stand shoul­der to shoul­der on this. Don’t advise, don’t pre­scribe, don’t inject. Let the death penal­ty die a nat­ur­al death.

(Nature, May 4, 2006). See Editorials, New Voices, and Method of Executions.

Tags
Citation Guide