Post by SoulTrainOz on Jul 3, 2006 20:58:57 GMT -5
2 days after a federal judge ordered Missouri to revamp its execution procedures, the state's corrections chief says it is difficult to land one key component - a board-certified anesthesiologist to assist in lethal injections.
Department Director Larry Crawford said Wednesday that his office is meeting resistance from anesthesiologists wary of crossing an ethical line.
He has even solicited help from 37 other states that, like Missouri, use a series of three intravenously injected drugs to execute prisoners strapped to a gurney.
"We will cast our net as wide as we need to to see if we can comply," Crawford said. "We haven't been successful yet, and it doesn't look promising that we can find anyone willing to do it."
The Death Penalty Information Center says no other state has been required to employ such involvement by an anesthesiologist.
"It's one thing to say a doctor should be present. It's another to say you shall be present," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the nonprofit organization. "It isn't being done anywhere else."
The judge's order Monday is the first high-level, definitive ruling of
what has to be changed in a state's lethal injection protocol, Dieter said.
Ruling in the case of death row inmate Michael Taylor, U.S. District Judge Fernando Gaitan Jr. ordered the state to make sweeping changes to its execution protocol by July 15. He halted executions until he was satisfied that Missouri's procedures posed no risk of unnecessary pain and suffering.
Gaitan expressed concerns that a surgeon, a self-described dyslexic identified only as "John Doe 1," had much discretion and worked under no written protocol in mixing the lethal drugs and overseeing the executions, despite his lack of training in anesthesiology.
The surgeon admitted using less than half the expected dose of the first drug, which is supposed to render the inmate unconscious.
2 other drugs given in quick succession are meant to paralyze the inmate, then stop the heart.
Taylor's attorneys argued that inmates could be left paralyzed and unable to say they were still conscious and feeling the heart-stopping drug, which causes excruciating pain. Inmates throughout the U.S. are making the same argument.
Gaitan's ruling makes the anesthesiologist's role central in executions.
The specialist would mix the drugs, and administer them or observe those who do. He or she would determine and monitor the inmate's level of consciousness, with the help of monitoring equipment or presence in the execution room.
But the medical profession is uncomfortable with such a role for doctors.
In February, a federal judge recommended that California employ 2 anesthesiologists to ensure that a condemned prisoner was fully unconscious at his execution. They initially agreed, then backed out, citing ethical concerns.
Also in February, the American Society of Anesthesiologists issued a statement saying it supports the American Medical Association's position that doctors should not directly or indirectly participate in executions.
"Physicians are healers, not executioners," the anesthesiologists'
statement said in part.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will review Gaitan's ruling.
Will the state have to cease executions if it can't find an
anesthesiologist?
"That's a logical conclusion, but I'm not ready to say that's what's going to happen," Crawford said. "All eyes are on Missouri."
ON THE NET----American Medical Association: www.ama-assn.org/
The Death Penalty Information Center: www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
(source for both: Associated Press)
Department Director Larry Crawford said Wednesday that his office is meeting resistance from anesthesiologists wary of crossing an ethical line.
He has even solicited help from 37 other states that, like Missouri, use a series of three intravenously injected drugs to execute prisoners strapped to a gurney.
"We will cast our net as wide as we need to to see if we can comply," Crawford said. "We haven't been successful yet, and it doesn't look promising that we can find anyone willing to do it."
The Death Penalty Information Center says no other state has been required to employ such involvement by an anesthesiologist.
"It's one thing to say a doctor should be present. It's another to say you shall be present," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the nonprofit organization. "It isn't being done anywhere else."
The judge's order Monday is the first high-level, definitive ruling of
what has to be changed in a state's lethal injection protocol, Dieter said.
Ruling in the case of death row inmate Michael Taylor, U.S. District Judge Fernando Gaitan Jr. ordered the state to make sweeping changes to its execution protocol by July 15. He halted executions until he was satisfied that Missouri's procedures posed no risk of unnecessary pain and suffering.
Gaitan expressed concerns that a surgeon, a self-described dyslexic identified only as "John Doe 1," had much discretion and worked under no written protocol in mixing the lethal drugs and overseeing the executions, despite his lack of training in anesthesiology.
The surgeon admitted using less than half the expected dose of the first drug, which is supposed to render the inmate unconscious.
2 other drugs given in quick succession are meant to paralyze the inmate, then stop the heart.
Taylor's attorneys argued that inmates could be left paralyzed and unable to say they were still conscious and feeling the heart-stopping drug, which causes excruciating pain. Inmates throughout the U.S. are making the same argument.
Gaitan's ruling makes the anesthesiologist's role central in executions.
The specialist would mix the drugs, and administer them or observe those who do. He or she would determine and monitor the inmate's level of consciousness, with the help of monitoring equipment or presence in the execution room.
But the medical profession is uncomfortable with such a role for doctors.
In February, a federal judge recommended that California employ 2 anesthesiologists to ensure that a condemned prisoner was fully unconscious at his execution. They initially agreed, then backed out, citing ethical concerns.
Also in February, the American Society of Anesthesiologists issued a statement saying it supports the American Medical Association's position that doctors should not directly or indirectly participate in executions.
"Physicians are healers, not executioners," the anesthesiologists'
statement said in part.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will review Gaitan's ruling.
Will the state have to cease executions if it can't find an
anesthesiologist?
"That's a logical conclusion, but I'm not ready to say that's what's going to happen," Crawford said. "All eyes are on Missouri."
ON THE NET----American Medical Association: www.ama-assn.org/
The Death Penalty Information Center: www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
(source for both: Associated Press)