|
|
An examination of the history of the death penalty in this country shows a gradual departure from a public and often bloody spectacle to one that is hidden behind closed doors, sanitizing what has become an uncommon form of retributive justice.2 It is ironic that removing the procedure from the prying eyes of the public has correlated with a continuing decrease in its application.
The ultimate cleansing of human executions was to have been accomplished by making the process akin to the painless "putting to sleep" of our beloved pets, except under the guidance of enlightened and compassionate physicians rather than veterinarians. Unfortunately for this approach, and as clearly pointed out in the editorial accompanying this article,3 the involvement of physicians in the methodical and intentional killing of a person — who becomes a "patient" the minute a doctor accepts a participatory role, no matter how reprehensible the person's conduct may have been (and irrespective of how far removed from the actual physical procedure the doctor's role may be) — is a grave violation of professional medical ethics. Physicians acting as physicians (i.e., in their professional capacity) may not kill patients on purpose. Even physicians who, in their private lives, might condone capital punishment may not play an enabling role in this process in their professional lives. To do so would be a breach of everything we hold to be important in the practice of medicine.
Philip M. Rosoff, M.D.
Duke University Medical Center
Durham, NC 27710
References
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
HOME | SUBSCRIBE | SEARCH | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | COLLECTIONS | PRIVACY | HELP | beta.nejm.org Comments and questions? Please contact us. The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved. |
Previous
