Capital punishment and role of anesthesiologists

Re “It’s not about Michael,” editorial, Feb. 16

The Constitution makes it clear that cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional. For those who believe that a life spent behind bars is crueler than (almost) immediate death, I ask them to reflect on their position: Is this position not unconstitutional unto itself? Life expectancy for inmates imprisoned over long periods is far less than the average lifespan outside prison. Is it not just as cruel, or even crueler, to prolong this agonizing way of life? It would be for me. So, the next time you speak out against capital punishment because it is cruel and unusual, ask yourself if the alternative elevates itself to the intent of the Constitution.

JAY B. LITVAK

Costa Mesa

*

The case against capital punishment could have not been presented more succinctly than in your editorial. It is wrong to kill. Period. And a lifetime in prison is a far worse punishment than execution. One day we will join other civilized nations in abolishing this barbarity.

PHIL HILLMAN

Los Angeles

*

Re “Anesthesiologist to Monitor Execution,” Feb. 16

We are shocked that two anesthesiologists would agree to participate in the execution of Michael Morales. Doctors are dedicated to relieving suffering and prolonging life. We believe the public should know that it has long been the position of organized medicine that it is absolutely unethical for a physician to participate in a legal execution in any way. The American Medical Assn.’s Code of Ethics for Physicians states: “A physician, as a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, should not be a participant in a legally authorized execution.”

We call on the two unnamed physicians to reconsider their agreement to participate. We further call on the governor, attorney general and secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to change their plans. Finally, we ask that the Medical Board of California investigate and discipline these two physicians, should they decide to go forward.

DONALD S. BRODER MD

Co-president, Physicians for

Social Responsibility

Los Angeles

*

Using an anesthesiologist to monitor consciousness in a condemned prisoner during execution is problematic: Aiding in the execution goes against the ethics and moral principles of the practice of medicine, and without appropriate brain monitors, an anesthesiologist is no better than any other person in “guessing” what levels of consciousness exist in a patient (or prisoner) under anesthesia.

Two commercially available brain monitors can be applied to the execution-consciousness situation. Each will display brain electrical function (EEG) and give reasonable information reflecting levels of consciousness during the execution process. The monitors may also aid in the determination of death with cessation of EEG activity, not merely heartbeat. With these monitors, someone (other than a physician) trained in their use and interpretation can follow the loss of consciousness and progress of the execution, avoiding the ethical conflicts and freeing anesthesiologists to perform their duties of saving, not taking, lives.

WILLIAM J. LOSKOTA MD

Anesthesiologist

Keck School of Medicine, USC