Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Cited by 2 publications
References 0 publications
Medical ethics prohibit physicians from using their special skills to serve in nonhealth related, state‐sponsored activities such as capital punishment and torture, yet physician participation has historically always occurred and continues to occur. Common arguments for physician participation in judicial execution by lethal injection include assertions that ‘killing’ is already part of the practice of medicine (e.g. abortion, physician‐assisted suicide and euthanasia), and therefore historical prohibitions no longer apply; that physician participation in executions respects ‘autonomy’; and that participation in executions and torture promote beneficence – in the former by providing a ‘humane’ execution, and in the later by promoting social safety and security. Strong evidence shows that neither beneficence argument is true, and that physicians both promote harm to others, and sustain severe harm to themselves and the profession as a whole when they become complicit. Key Concepts Despite universal condemnation, many physicians remain willing to participate in capital punishment and torture on behalf of governments. Medical professionalism encompasses the conduct, qualities and aims that characterise a person engaged in the practice of medicine and includes the competent completion of tasks as well as the context in which they occur. The practice of medicine is not defined by the use of specific technical skills but must meet requirements of serving some medically beneficial purpose and based on treatments that are backed by theoretical, clinical and experimental evidence. Physician participation in executions is not limited to performing technical tasks in the execution but includes any and all activities that might facilitate judicial executions. Arguments that physician participation in executions mirrors activities such as abortion, physician‐assisted suicide and euthanasia, that are acceptable activities within the practice of medicine should be rejected, since such activities are neither morally nor medically analogous. Current evidence supports that lethal injection executions are not more humane for prisoners: they are fraught with complications, take much longer than other forms of execution and may subject the prisoner to extreme suffering while being unable to signal awareness to the executioners. Torture itself is universally condemned by international organisations, as is physician participation, yet torture continues globally and is facilitated by physicians all over the world. There is no credible evidence that torture is effective in providing meaningful information for safety and security, while there is significant evidence that it is ineffective, and furthermore reduces safety and security. The ‘ticking timebomb terrorist’ scenario, used by many to argue for torture in certain situations, contains unrealistic propositions and assumptions and is therefore not a valid instrument for judging the moral acceptability of torture. Physician participation in torture includes activities that prepare the prisoner for torture, activities that design methods of torture, activities that treat the prisoner to enable him or her to be returned to torturers for further torture, and falsification of death certificates and medical records to cover up torture.
Medical ethics prohibit physicians from using their special skills to serve in nonhealth related, state‐sponsored activities such as capital punishment and torture, yet physician participation has historically always occurred and continues to occur. Common arguments for physician participation in judicial execution by lethal injection include assertions that ‘killing’ is already part of the practice of medicine (e.g. abortion, physician‐assisted suicide and euthanasia), and therefore historical prohibitions no longer apply; that physician participation in executions respects ‘autonomy’; and that participation in executions and torture promote beneficence – in the former by providing a ‘humane’ execution, and in the later by promoting social safety and security. Strong evidence shows that neither beneficence argument is true, and that physicians both promote harm to others, and sustain severe harm to themselves and the profession as a whole when they become complicit. Key Concepts Despite universal condemnation, many physicians remain willing to participate in capital punishment and torture on behalf of governments. Medical professionalism encompasses the conduct, qualities and aims that characterise a person engaged in the practice of medicine and includes the competent completion of tasks as well as the context in which they occur. The practice of medicine is not defined by the use of specific technical skills but must meet requirements of serving some medically beneficial purpose and based on treatments that are backed by theoretical, clinical and experimental evidence. Physician participation in executions is not limited to performing technical tasks in the execution but includes any and all activities that might facilitate judicial executions. Arguments that physician participation in executions mirrors activities such as abortion, physician‐assisted suicide and euthanasia, that are acceptable activities within the practice of medicine should be rejected, since such activities are neither morally nor medically analogous. Current evidence supports that lethal injection executions are not more humane for prisoners: they are fraught with complications, take much longer than other forms of execution and may subject the prisoner to extreme suffering while being unable to signal awareness to the executioners. Torture itself is universally condemned by international organisations, as is physician participation, yet torture continues globally and is facilitated by physicians all over the world. There is no credible evidence that torture is effective in providing meaningful information for safety and security, while there is significant evidence that it is ineffective, and furthermore reduces safety and security. The ‘ticking timebomb terrorist’ scenario, used by many to argue for torture in certain situations, contains unrealistic propositions and assumptions and is therefore not a valid instrument for judging the moral acceptability of torture. Physician participation in torture includes activities that prepare the prisoner for torture, activities that design methods of torture, activities that treat the prisoner to enable him or her to be returned to torturers for further torture, and falsification of death certificates and medical records to cover up torture.
SummaryDuring general anaesthesia, niidlatencj-auditor?. evoked The midlatency auditory evoked potentials (MLAEP) occur 10 to 100 ms after stimulus presentation and are generated by different overlapping areas of the primary auditory cortex [l-61. The early auditory evoked potentials, generated in the brainstem, are grossly unchanged by anaesthesia [7-91. The late cortical components show a great variation of latencies and amplitudes in the awake state [l, 101. In contrast. midlatency peaks of the AEP do not differ intra-and interindividually. Under general anaesthesia with a number of general anaesthetic agents MLAEP are suppressed dosedependently [7][8][9][11][12][13]. . During general anaesthesia amplitudes of the early cortical waves of the AEP increased after surgical stimulation, indicating that MLAEP reflect the activity of the central nervous system and not only anaesthetic concentration. These observations were made during light anaesthesia with nitrous oxide and halothane. This raises the question whether surgical stimuli also lead to increases in MLAEP amplitudes when analgesia is provided during surgery by high dose opioids. Therefore, we investigated the effects of strong surgical stimuli, skin incision and steronotomy, on MLAEP in
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
Contact Info
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Product
Resources
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.
