Missouri Says It Can’t Hire Doctor for Executions

[Rose Siding]

The State of Missouri, facing a deadline today for changing the way it executes condemned prisoners by lethal injection, told a federal judge last night that it was simply unable to meet his demand that the state hire a board-certified anesthesiologist to oversee executions.

....(I)n the state’s filing last night, officials said they had sent letters to 298 certified anesthesiologists who reside anywhere near the state’s death chamber in Bonne Terre, and were turned down by all of them.

“A requirement of using a board-certified anesthesiologist is a requirement that cannot presently be met,” Attorney General Jeremiah W. Nixon wrote. “To enforce it may effectively bar implementation of the death penalty in Missouri. Surely that is not what the court intended.”

It was uncertain whether the judge, who could not be reached late last night, would accept the state’s alternative: Missouri officials said they would instead use “medical personnel in roles appropriate,” like a physician, nurse or pharmacist preparing the drugs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/15/us/15lethal.html

The doc the judge first heard from said he sometimes used less of the anesthetic than he was supposed to use, that he'd been "improvising", that he's dyslexic, and that it's not unusual for him to make mistakes -but not in his death chamber work.

[EFerrari]

1. Bingo! "First, do no wrong."

:kick:

[Wilms]

2. Condi has a Phd.

She might even enjoy the work.

[rodeodance]

3. we now have the 'medicalization' of executions (docs closer to the

actually killing)---not just stepping in and saying-HE/SHE is dead-after the killing is over (beheading, exlectrocution, hanging, shooting, etc).

[NYC]

4. Interesting change, isn't it?

Doctors can kill people for the state, but are forbidden to assist at suicides.

[Ian David]

5. Enough with lethal injection. I have a much better method...

Subponae them as a witness in the Enron case, and they'll either have an "accident" or a heart attack...

[Vidar]

6. I appreciate the ethics of the anesthesiologists, though I am not

entirely opposed to the death penalty (cf my signature line).

[3waygeek]

7. Too bad that Frist is tied up

running the Senate -- this is right up his alley.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. My cousin is an anesthesiologist

She used to practice in MO but moved her practice to KS due to the ridiculously high malpractice insurance rates in MO.

She just told me last week that several professional groups she belongs to had sent out notices advising member physicians to NOT participate in lethal injections. It violates the 'do no harm' oath they take when they become doctors.

[dsc]

9. this is exhibit 1 in why I take the position I do in regards to

owners of drug stores and birth control pills. If the state can force drug stores to dispense birth control they can force anesthesiologists to do this. That is why giving the state these powers is so dangerous.

[depakid]

10. That's the most ridiculous "connection" I've ever heard

Requiring pharmacists to fill birth control prescriptions has absolutely NOTHING to with unprofessional conduct like participating in an execution.

If pharmacists won't follow a doctors' orders- then they need get out of the business. Let that sort of abuse of patients go- and next thing you know- some scientologist will want to stop filling prescriptions for anti-depressants.

[dsc]

12. Actually I didn't say pharmacists

I said DRUG STORE OWNERS. I REPEAT DRUG STORE OWNERS. Those are the people who own drug stores. Not the people who dispense drugs. And yes, giving the state the power to tell OWNERS of a business what they must stock is very similar to giving the state the power to tell doctors exactly what to do.

[susanna]

15. OK, then if the DRUG STORE OWNER

can't stock a medication or pharmaceutical, maybe he is in the wrong line of work.

Again, we're not talking about pharmacists, as you pointed out via the earlier post.

IMHO, DRUG STORE OWNERS exist to make medications and drugs approved by scientific agreement available. If the DRUG STORE OWNER doesn't like it, maybe he shouldn't go into that business in the first place.

As an aside, do you know if the DRUG STORE OWNER takes the Hippocratic Oath? "First, do no harm."?

on edit: phraseology

[dsc]

16. doctors do harm all the time

Cancer doctors give harmful chemotherapy in hopes of saving the patient. Doctors amputate limbs in order to save lives. It could easily be argued that by executing a particular prisoner one is making society safer. But the general point is this. If government has the power to say to a drug store owner you can't be a drug store owner unless you stock medication z, then government would have the power to say to doctors you can't be doctors unless you execute prisoners. The only difference between these powers is that you and I happen to like the outcome if the first case, and you and I happen not to like the outcome of the second case. That isn't a consistant philosophy. It is using the ends to justify the means.

[susanna]

30. I have no idea how to answer...

...a logical fallacy such as it seems you may have constructed. A does NOT equal B-Z. I certainly will look into what you have said, but I am having trouble grasping what I'm seeing from your posts.

I admit to being totally lost by your reasoning. I believe you are trying to make a point, but I must be frank and tell you you are not making your case. Maybe you can try again.

I am still of the opinion you're making a rather large overreach.

[depakid]

18. The logic still applies

If scientologists buy up the only drug store in some rural area- does that mean they have the right to deny people the ability to receive their psychiatric meds?

Or are you saying that that only so called "Christians" get special rights to deny people their prescriptions?

[susanna]

14. Uh...I don't see why they compare.

One is taking an existing life; the other is preventing a potential one.

I guess I am confused. Please explain in more detail for me....?

[dsc]

17. In both cases you are giving the government power to tell

a professional what he may or may not do. Giving government that power is a very dangerous thing.

[Tansy_Gold]

21. Well, since "the government" decides who is a "professional"

and who isn't. . . . . .

Since the FDA decides which "drugs" are "legal" and which ones aren't, they are already telling "drug store owners" which drugs they CAN'T sell.

And please remember that "the government" is only that body which is elected by the citizens -- yes, whether we "approve" of the election results or not. If the "majority" of the voters had been uncomfortable enough with the 2000, 2002, or 2004 "elections," they'd have taken to the streets or done whatever it took to change the result. The "majority" is quite content with what we have. And the majority includes a lot of "us."

[dsc]

22. The FDA doesn't determine the legality of drugs

they do determine if drugs who other people decide are legal may be used in specific ways. For example the FDA can't legalize marijuana nor ban asparin. What they can, and do, do is say asparin can be sold over the counter and used for pain relief. The fact is if you give the government the power to compel a group of people to sell birth control then you are also giving the government the power to forbid the same group of people from selling it. I have lived in several places in my life. The majority of them would sooner ban the sale of bc than require the sale of bc if left to their own devices. Thankfully we have avoided leaving them to their own devices for now.

[Solon]

23. I don't understand the equivelency at all...

Pharmacists are LICENSED by the state to dispense all drugs that are FDA approved to patients with a valid subscription. They may only use their discretion in one case, possibilities for drug conflicts, no more no less. This is there only job.

Anesthesiologists have another, just as limiting job, they are to work in operating rooms to dispense drugs to patients at the instructions of a licensed doctor. Their discretion is limited to knowing HOW much of said drugs is to be used in this situation, usually in an operating room. Notice who CAN order them around, DOCTORS, that's IT. Anesthesiologists are NOT under any obligation to follow any state directive, and cannot be ordered to do something outside the direction of a doctor.

[dsc]

24. anesthesiologists are doctors

and do not simply follow doctors orders. They also are licenced by the state so if a state can make one licence (that for a pharmacist) conditioned on one goal they want accomplished why can't they turn around and say that they will make another licence (that of anesthesiologist) conditioned on another. Incidently, I think pharmacists can be ordered by their bosses, drug store owners, to dispense bc or any other drug. It is requiring the owners to stock the drugs that I think is over reaching.

[Solon]

25. If they can't stock it, then they must provide it on demand...

through mail order or through another means that doesn't inconvienence the patient. Also, I know Anesthesiologists are licensed by the state, I was referring to the well known limitations of said licenses AS they are practicing as Anesthesiologists. By the way, is there any way to shorten that damned word? Damned hard to type it all the time. :)

My problem with allowing Pharmacy store owners to have total discretion as to WHO they serve, which is what this is, means they could refuse to stock or have a means to supply patients with Sickle Cell Anemia drugs, or drug cocktails for treatment of AIDS, etc. What would be the limits?

[dsc]

26. actually several pharmacies don't sell AIDS drugs

and many others don't sell Oxy Cotin. I would imagine there are whole hosts of drugs one can't get at particular drug stores. You simply go to the next one. I agree with typing anesthesiologists. I have great difficulty tying l's and o's in close order.

[Solon]

27. Not talking about simply stocking the stores, but outright...

not serving the patients. I mean, the rule basically is this, if your pharmacy can't supply you with the drug at the moment, they HAVE to order it from the supplier in a timely manner, or transfer the prescription to another store that does have a supply. This whole thing about Birth Control drugs is the fact that the Pharmacies in question would actually REFUSE SERVICE, in addition, some would seize the prescription, which is nothing more than theft, and without that, forget just going to another store.

[dsc]

28. They certainly shouldn't take prescriptions

no matter what else they do. But it should be noted that in the case of bc it usually is a time element at hand. Most people aren't going to want to wait for the drug on order. Thus this regulation becomes a defacto requirement to keep the drug in stock.

[Solon]

29. I know, that's why I said what I did...

If getting the drug isn't time dependent, then they would order it, if it is time dependent, they will tell you where else they can go to, even a COMPETING pharmacy, to pick up the prescription, hell, half the time, they will even deal with the other pharmacy, so there is no waiting time there by the time you arrive. This is the maximum that is required for pharmacies, but those who REFUSE to dispense BC pills also refuse to do either of these two things.

[Pithlet]

31. How does that follow?

I guess that means we have to get rid of all rules and regulations, then, following your logic. If the state forces doctors to follow certain guidelines, then it can force gas station owners to poke you in the eye with a pencil. If it can stop people who choose to own and operate establishments that dispense state controlled substances from imposing their will on the rest of us and coming between our doctors and our care, then it can force book store owners to sell nothing but Tim La Hay books. After all, anything's possible.

Your pharmacy analogy would hold if the state were actually forcing a pharmacist to do anything. They weren't. There is a difference between setting rules and regulations, and actual force. They were telling pharmacy owners that if they want to profit from providing regulated medications to the public, then, in addition to other rules and regulations already imposed on them, they weren't allowed to pick and choose themselves which medications the public receives in order to impose a particular religious, political, or personal agenda on the public they're serving, thereby harming the public. It's no different than the rules and regulations the state sets for other businesses. The state isn't forcing grocery store owners to provide food that is safe to eat. They're telling grocery store owners that if they want to profit by selling food to the public, they have to abide by rules and regulations ensuring the safety of the public that consumes the food they're selling. I'm certainly happy the state has that right every time I shop at my local Kroger. In both cases, if the pharmacist or grocer, for whatever reason, doesn't want to continue serving the public within the guidelines the state sets, they can quit providing those goods and services. Neither have a right to exercise total freedom in their business practices at the expense of the safety and wellbeing of the public they're profiting from.

[ismnotwasm]

11. Weird

Of course there are all kinds of death penalty mistakes out there.
I was reading in the most recent "Book of Lists" by Russ Kick about "botched executions" 36 listed in the book. From the inmate assisting the executioner finding a vein prior to lethal injection, death taking a while because of collapsed veins to a type of allergic reaction to the drugs administered.

In one instance in 1983
" Said noted death penalty defense attorney David Bruck; "Jimmy Lee Gray died banging his head against a steel pole in the gas chamber while the reporters counted his moans (eleven, according to the Associated Press)". Later it was revealed that the executioner, Barry Bruce, was drunk "

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. If it is murder and a violation of the Hippocratic Oath...

If, as the "pro-life" movement has long been screaming, it is murder and a violation of the Hippocratic Oath for a doctor to do an abortion, then how is it not murder and a violation of the Hippocratic Oath to participate in the murder of an adult, mentally competent human being?

[Demeter]

19. Oh, Well!

Dubya might want a part-time job in his retirement, between the trial and the sentencing. He'd jump at the chance, too.

[Ravy]

20. I heard illegal immigrants will take jobs Americans won't do.... (n/t)