"Every custom begins as a broken precedent."
- Nancy Astor
My last post on the website addressed the rights of tortured terrorists in Guantanamo Bay subjected to experimentation against their will, but it was a bit hard to digest since I was defending the rights of anti-American proponents of violence. That seemed to be the primary argument from the opposition. Perhaps I was a bit extremist, but at this point, it might be safer to ask if tried and true Americans on death row can be subjected to human experimentation. Moreover, can we justify a case for/against capital punishment that differs from our argument for terrorists in Guantanamo? Does the ethical debate change?
The controversy revolves around the execution of Kenneth Biros in Ohio, who was put to death using a single anesthetic in place of the regular three-drug cocktail. Biros’ lawyer claimed that this procedure really was “experimental.” There were other ethical controversies: the doctors were involved in administering the dosage when this was a separate “executive killing” and they should not have been. On the other hand, the Nuremburg Code does not apply to executions. It might have been apropos to review past ethical codes, but as we can see, they point in both directions. What is the right thing to do?
Despite my repudiation of human experimentation at Guantanamo, I would condone Biros’ execution. Though it seems like I’m adopting a unpatriotic double standard, there are a few reasons for this stance. Dr. Teresa Zimmers believes the one-drug knockout miracle is not sufficient and shouldn’t be administered on a “doormat of blind acceptance.” She is right- which is why, as state prosecutor Charles Wille, would put it, “Somebody has to be the first.” Doctors are hesitant to tie their name to this new form of lethal injection, but an improved technique may very well be underway, and for humanity to make any progress, tests must be run.
That practical premise brings us to the ethical dilemma. Should we obey the principles of informed consent, so methodically outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki post-WWII? Because these are not international subjects (like the Guantanamo Bay terrorists), and because their health is not at stake (they will die either way), the same arguments don’t hold true. Biros cannot be the judge of how he dies or even a “method of treatment” because these doctors are not looking to cure him. This is a matter of politics and policy investigation- when the doctors are present, they play the role of researcher alone, not medic. When in a jail cell, the rights of prisoners on death row to “humanity, freedom, and dignity” are restricted, and those regulations are perfectly in line with international human rights law (Prisoner’s rights).
The question of capital punishment is a separate matter to be addressed (I’m personally not for it). But if the death penalty is a given, perhaps these inhumane and unjust wrong-doers can serve humanity as subjects of research- especially when the probability of fatality in the experiment is a predetermined 1.
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_about/experimentation
1 comment:
As a preface, I too don't like the death penalty, but for the sake of debate I'll concede that it's a necessary evil.
I agree with your conclusion that the decision to use a new form of execution in this case was reasonable, but for essentially the opposite reasons. Your perspective is that the execution was justified because it was done on someone undeserving of dignity and humane treatment in order to "serve humanity" and allow "humanity to make... progress". I see it as a step towards more humane treatment for someone who does deserve dignity in order to serve not humanity but the condemned himself.
First off, the current method of lethal injection is rather inhumane. It consists of an anaesthetic drug, followed by one that induces paralysis, and finally one that stops the heart and causes death. The minor problem with this procedure is that if the first drug doesn't work but the second one does (which has happened quite a few times), the prisoner is left conscious and very much aware of pain but unable to speak or move while the excruciating potassium chloride courses through his veins.
It suffices to say that the popular image of a quick and painless death from lethal injection is flawed. Considering that I believe that everyone deserves their eight amendment right to be exempt from cruel and unusual punishment, I think that if we're going to have executions at all they should be as humane and painless as possible. The one-drug procedure involves only sodium thiopental (the anaesthetic) and so avoids the potassium chloride issue. Whether or not there is some other problem with this method remains to be seen, but I don't see how it could be worse than what we already have.
Finally, I'm not sure how coming up with a more painless way to kill someone serves humanity in any respect -- as you say, it's not like anyone can actually benefit from this procedure in the first place.
Post a Comment