One of the most hotly contested questions in the field of medical ethics today is the role of the physician in legally sanctioned execution (a.k.a. capital punishment); and while many professional medical associations in the United States, such as the American Medical Association (AMA), have explicitly condemned the use of physicians in capital punishment, there is not yet any legal precedent banning such action. Furthermore, many state governments have promised anonymity to physicians who agree to take part, so as to protect them from expulsion from their respective professional associations.

I urge all of you to read the AMA’s principles of medical ethics (Pay particular attention to principle III) to gain a better understanding of the basic codes by which physicians are to adhere during their daily practice. From these principles I understand there to be two elements that are at the core of the ethics of the physician which are particularly relevant to the debate surrounding capital punishment: (1) the primary responsibility of the physician, which is to come before all else, is the health of his or her patient; (2) physicians are not in the position to pass judgment on the value of a life. Understanding that most physicians adhere to these principles it come as no surprise that almost every professional medical association has condemned the inclusion of physicians in processes of capital punishment.

I must now direct your attention to an article appearing in The American Journal of Bioethics entitled The Ethical “Elephant” in the Death Penalty “Room”. In this article Michael Keane of Monash Medical Center makes the argument that “physician opposition to capital punishment may be contributing to significant harm.” His basic argument is for the relatives of those murdered, individuals he calls co-victims, and the ways in which brain damage may be suffered by these individuals when “justice is not done.” He never actually makes claims of whether capital punishment itself is just or not, which is in many ways to completely avoid the meat of the question, but instead merely argues that there are groups of individuals beneficially affected by capital punishment and that their phsychological and physical well-being must be taken into account.

Interestingly, the author completely ignores the effects execution will have on the family of the individual being executed.