Welcome to Gaia! ::

Okay. I am still in agreement with the death penalty. I always will be, its one of those things that I feel are necessary for the men and women who ae so far gone and so far depraived that the best way of dealing with them (if extensive counseling and rehabilitation attempts fail) is to simply let them go. I feel the death penalty though should be reserved for those who show an unwillingness in prison as well as society..IE, they pose a threat to the lives of EVERY ONE.

Now, yes, I feel a doctor who has medical knowledge of the chemicals being used should preform the exception IF HE/SHE WANTS TO. If I were to be executed, and I came to accept that my death was immanent, I would rather have some one with knowledge about the saline solutions being used administer the process. Much like, with abortions. Even though its a great evil in my opnoin, I would rather have someone experienced, then some half-job they pulled in off the street a few weeks ago.

That wasnt the question being asked XP

But you can't really compare the two, when they're two seperate issues really. I mean if he DIDN'T want to die that would be a completely different story, however then you still have the issue of he has probably killed someone so that's justification in someone's eyes. Or to other people he's not violating bodily domain so he shouldn't be killed, in their eyes.

It's really a pointless question because it all comes back to the question "at what point do we have the right to decide life and death for other people?"

I disagree with the death penalty, and I'm glad it doesn't exist where I live (England). However, in essence what this guy is saying is that he wants to be euthanised, which IS illegal. He no longer wants to be alive, and the law prevents him from doing that. So, while it seems cruel to keep him alive if he doesn't want to be, the law prevents people who are in pain and agony from doing the same thing - why not a murderer? He was given the death penalty by law, so the law should decide when it is carried out.

I don't think the medical board should really have a say in whether doctors execute these prisoners or not. These are people sentenced to death, not patients who need to be saved.

What's funny in a "ha-ha" way, is that in England, back in the 1500's and what not, it was illegal to commit suicide. The punishment for attempted suicide was death.

The board is essentially taking a stand against capital punishment--and in this case, even against assisted suicide. I wouldn't *quite* call it hypocritical that they aren't taking a stand against abortion, because there are significant differences, but still, I think they should do that too.

I should point out that even though I believe in doctor-assisted suicide (your body, your choice, given sound mind), I wouldn't help this guy. I'm guessing he wants to die because he feels guilty, or is depressed over being incarcerated. In either case, he could benefit from counseling.

I'm glad it was pointed out that combination-drug suicide/execution is stupid. Nobody needs paralytics, just a triple dose of morphine. It's the most peaceful way to die, in fact, so many people die from heroin ODs because they don't even try to stop themselves when they know they've ODed--they're at total peace and are accepting of death. People using with them often don't notice either because you just pass out quietly and stop breathing. No heart attack, no convulsions, no pain.

Whatever the law is, though, it's not an independent body's duty to follow it--they can protest.

I believe in California, some time ago, an execution had to be delayed because no physician in the state would agree to participate, and one had to be present.