Re: that Ru-486 post below

I read the post a couple below this one with interest, especially this part:

Pharmacists from coast to coast have been under fire for not dispensing RU 486 out of reasons of conscience. The ACLU and Planned Parenthood have been attempting to use state licensing regulations to force these Pharmacists to go against their religious teachings and dispense medications which are used to end human life.

Just moments earlier I had read a story, via Drudge that makes for a small study in contrast. The headline and subhead are “Execution of Killer-Rapist Is Postponed After Doctors Walk Out
— Court-ordered anesthesiologists refuse to participate in the process, citing ethical concerns.” The gist of it is:

SAN QUENTIN — The scheduled execution of convicted murderer-rapist Michael Morales was postponed this morning after court-ordered anesthesiologists refused to participate in the process. The prison warden abruptly changed plans and announced that the inmate would be executed with a lethal dose of barbiturates….
The doctors’ withdrawal came at the end of hasty legal maneuvering in U.S. District Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. But it was the language in an opinion rendered Monday by the appellate court that had the court-ordered anesthesiologists in mutiny. [Ed.: This is another example of why courts are usually not the place to turn for intricate policy decisions -- lawyers in robes simply don't have the expertise for a lot of issues like this one]
The doctors’ concerns hinged on the ethics of returning an inmate to consciousness in the event of a botched lethal injection.

Doctors said the ruling raised serious questions about the possibility of having to intervene in the execution “if any evidence of either pain or a return to consciousness arose.”

In a statement to the warden, the doctors said, “Any such intervention would be medically unethical. As a result, we have withdrawn from participation in this current process. … What is being asked of us is ethically unacceptable.”

Personally, I’m o.k. with this. The doctors thought that they were asked to do something that they, personally and subjectively, believed might potentially be “wrong”.

Presuming for the sake of arguement that these doctors had the right to object as they did, why can’t pharmacists decline to participate in chemical abortions by dispensing RU-486 without risking professional discipline?

Comments are closed.