Death by Lethal Injection: Does the Physician Contradict the Hippocratic Oath?

The death penalty is a highly debated topic in many states with Texas leading the way in the number of criminals executioned each year. While the death penalty is not a new concept in American culture, it is debated more intensely today than years past.

Of the many issues involved in debating the death penalty, there is controversy over the degree to which a physician should participate in the practice. In fact, many opponents of the death penalty argue the use of a physician in the practice of the death penalty is in direct contrast to the Hippocratic Oath.

With the Hippocratic Oath a physician vows to take every measure to avoid harm to an individual, working to only ease pain and suffering. In fact, the participating of physicians in the practice of capital punishment is not supported by the American Medical Association (AMA) although many physicians will state it is acceptable for their profession to be involved. To the extent the AMA does not support the practice of physician involvement, there is always the possibility a physician could be sanctioned or even have the license revoked, however the AMA has never actually taken these steps.

Death by lethal injection is the practice in which most physicians, today, become involved in terms of capital punishment. In their defense of this medical ethical debate, many physicians argue there presence in the death penalty process ensure the individual a more humane end to their life.

In the realm of medical ethics, the term "beneficence" refers to the physician's obligation to prevent and remove harm from a patient, and to remove risks and promote benefits. Under the provisions of beneficence, there is an obligation of nonmaleficence, or the prohibition of inflicting harm, injury or death.