4 ms·

Yet in the US there is this "crisis" of not being abel to source the injections needed. Many medical doctors (persons with legal authority to prescribe drugs)

Yet in the US there is this "crisis" of not being abel to source the injections needed. Many medical doctors (persons with legal authority to prescribe drugs) and pharmacists (persons with legal authority to dispense drugs) object to capital punishment, and thus will not supply prisons with drugs that have the sole purpose of killing someone.

gadders 11y ago
So they wouldn't supply medication for assisted suicide either? Also, allowing people to opt out on supplying the drug on matters of conscience is a slippery slope. What about letting people opt-out of providing abortions? Or marrying gay couples? A case could made for people refusing to do these as matters of conscience as well.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Multiple countries allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions.
- tP5n 11y ago
  No, it's not a slope. Gay marriage and the death penalty are two very different things and I can't believe I'm typing this out. There also numerous reasons to be against the death penalty but not abortions, but something tells me I'd rather not have this discussion here and now [1]. [1] for what it's worth, an example not related but relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9770221 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9770221
  - blfr 11y ago
    They're not very different if you believe that personal ethical beliefs can be used as a justification to not provide a service.
    - chucksmash 11y ago
      If you supply drugs to be used in an execution, you are part of a chain of actions that ends with the intentional taking of a life. If you bake a cake for a gay couple, you are part of a chain of actions that sort of, kind of, indirectly might offend your sensibilities. Those two outcomes are vastly dissimilar - equating them because they are both "doing things you object to as a matter of conscience" is too reductionist by half.
      - blfr 11y ago
        If you supply drugs (or facilities) to be used in an abortion, you are part of a chain of actions that ends with the intentional taking of a life. Same with assisted suicide. But even the magnitude cutoff is arbitrary. At which point is the result "bad enough" that ethical reservations start to apply?
  - happyscrappy 11y ago
    >I'd rather not have this discussion here and now Yes, because you want politics on HN, but only the politics you agree with. All political articles should be flagged.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Yes, because you want politics on HN On what do you base this assertion? It's not like the parent poster submitted this article.
      - happyscrappy 11y ago
        He or she wants to debate the death penalty but thinks abortion is out of bounds.
  - gadders 11y ago
    Of course the death penalty and gay marriage are not the same. As I obviously need to spell it out to you: - Some people's belief systems are against Gay Marriage - Some people's belief systems are against the Death Penalty Which set of personal beliefs is valid? Who decides which one should be allowed?
    - Jtsummers 11y ago
      Private entities (individuals, companies, clubs, etc.) can refuse to participate in things they find objectionable (gay marriage, straight marriage, death penalty, life, whatever). There may be legal repercussions if, for instance, what they're refusing to do is to pay taxes, a legal obligation. But gay marriage is now legal in all states, so representatives of the states are obligated to perform those services. The clergy aren't representatives of those states and so they can refuse, without legal consequence, to perform services they object to. The death penalty is legal in most states, so some one within that state is obligated to execute people, though they could potentially refuse (at the likely cost of their job, perhaps more). But a pharmacist, as a private party, is not obligated to sell the tools of execution to the state. It's their own choice.
      - gadders 11y ago
        >> Private entities (individuals, companies, clubs, etc.) can refuse to participate in things they find objectionable (gay marriage, straight marriage, death penalty, life, whatever). There may be legal repercussions if, for instance, what they're refusing to do is to pay taxes, a legal obligation. Not always, at least not in the UK: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233 Again, not commenting for or against. I just think that the philosophical arguments of where freedom of conscience butts up against other people's rights is an interesting topic.
- Jtsummers 11y ago
  > What about letting people opt-out of providing abortions? Or marrying gay couples? A case could made for people refusing to do these as matters of conscience as well. They already can to both your examples. No doctor (excepting, perhaps, military doctors stationed overseas, or so I've been told but not confirmed) can be forced to perform an abortion. Similarly, no member of the clergy is forced to marry gay couples. The only people required to do so, now, would be state officials (justice of the peace) whose job it is to perform weddings and who work for the public (rather than being part of a private, though religious, practice).
- geographomics 11y ago
  Same drugs but with different intent. Assisted suicide is a compassionate medical treatment for end stage incurable diseases, with full consent of the person being treated. Execution by the state is a coercive, non-medical procedure that deliberately causes harm.
- jkyle 11y ago
  > What about letting people opt-out of providing abortions? No doctor, hospital, or medical facility has _ever_ been forced into providing abortions. Ever. None. > Or marrying gay couples? No private organization has or ever will be forced to marry gay couples. Ever. None. > A case could made for people refusing to do these as matters of conscience as well. They don't have to make a case. They can just do it. Now. And forever.
DanBC 11y ago
The other problem with sourcing is the manufacturers refusing to sell medications for use in execution. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/19/death-penalty-boycott-drugs-execution-new-low http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/19/death-penalty-b...
- msandford 11y ago
  It'd be nice if a bunch of other companies would be able to find their spines re: objectionable things the government does. Like spying on everyone all the time. You know, like teclos and the like. It's pretty crazy that drug companies are more ethical than telecoms. Especially considering all the problems with reproducability that we're seeing on the cancer treatment front and plummeting drug effectiveness.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Not sure about those ethics. If you read the article, the main supply restriction was imposed by the European Commission, following the UK government. The US company that used to make them "suspended production because it was suffering commercially as a result of having its drug connected to executions," not exactly based on moral principles. There's also the difference that telecoms have (if secret) court orders mandating them to do so, while drug companies only have a few sales to lose (even at the peak of 300+ executions/year, it's probably not a very lucrative business).
- VLM 11y ago
  Something to think about, is if most of the civilized world sees what the executioners are doing as inherently immoral or unethical, the government has nothing to lose by violating medication licenses and laws, its not like the rest of the world is going to see a tiny little delta in immorality or lack of ethics as being much worse. So simply civil forfeiture a pharmacy safe or a chemical plant warehouse, after all the .gov sees civil forfeiture as a universal good...

gadders 11y ago

So they wouldn't supply medication for assisted suicide either? Also, allowing people to opt out on supplying the drug on matters of conscience is a slippery slope. What about letting people opt-out of providing abortions? Or marrying gay couples? A case could made for people refusing to do these as matters of conscience as well.

icebraining 11y ago
Multiple countries allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions.
tP5n 11y ago
No, it's not a slope. Gay marriage and the death penalty are two very different things and I can't believe I'm typing this out. There also numerous reasons to be against the death penalty but not abortions, but something tells me I'd rather not have this discussion here and now [1]. [1] for what it's worth, an example not related but relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9770221 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9770221
- blfr 11y ago
  They're not very different if you believe that personal ethical beliefs can be used as a justification to not provide a service.
  - chucksmash 11y ago
    If you supply drugs to be used in an execution, you are part of a chain of actions that ends with the intentional taking of a life. If you bake a cake for a gay couple, you are part of a chain of actions that sort of, kind of, indirectly might offend your sensibilities. Those two outcomes are vastly dissimilar - equating them because they are both "doing things you object to as a matter of conscience" is too reductionist by half.
    - blfr 11y ago
      If you supply drugs (or facilities) to be used in an abortion, you are part of a chain of actions that ends with the intentional taking of a life. Same with assisted suicide. But even the magnitude cutoff is arbitrary. At which point is the result "bad enough" that ethical reservations start to apply?
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  >I'd rather not have this discussion here and now Yes, because you want politics on HN, but only the politics you agree with. All political articles should be flagged.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Yes, because you want politics on HN On what do you base this assertion? It's not like the parent poster submitted this article.
    - happyscrappy 11y ago
      He or she wants to debate the death penalty but thinks abortion is out of bounds.
- gadders 11y ago
  Of course the death penalty and gay marriage are not the same. As I obviously need to spell it out to you: - Some people's belief systems are against Gay Marriage - Some people's belief systems are against the Death Penalty Which set of personal beliefs is valid? Who decides which one should be allowed?
  - Jtsummers 11y ago
    Private entities (individuals, companies, clubs, etc.) can refuse to participate in things they find objectionable (gay marriage, straight marriage, death penalty, life, whatever). There may be legal repercussions if, for instance, what they're refusing to do is to pay taxes, a legal obligation. But gay marriage is now legal in all states, so representatives of the states are obligated to perform those services. The clergy aren't representatives of those states and so they can refuse, without legal consequence, to perform services they object to. The death penalty is legal in most states, so some one within that state is obligated to execute people, though they could potentially refuse (at the likely cost of their job, perhaps more). But a pharmacist, as a private party, is not obligated to sell the tools of execution to the state. It's their own choice.
    - gadders 11y ago
      >> Private entities (individuals, companies, clubs, etc.) can refuse to participate in things they find objectionable (gay marriage, straight marriage, death penalty, life, whatever). There may be legal repercussions if, for instance, what they're refusing to do is to pay taxes, a legal obligation. Not always, at least not in the UK: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233 Again, not commenting for or against. I just think that the philosophical arguments of where freedom of conscience butts up against other people's rights is an interesting topic.
Jtsummers 11y ago
> What about letting people opt-out of providing abortions? Or marrying gay couples? A case could made for people refusing to do these as matters of conscience as well. They already can to both your examples. No doctor (excepting, perhaps, military doctors stationed overseas, or so I've been told but not confirmed) can be forced to perform an abortion. Similarly, no member of the clergy is forced to marry gay couples. The only people required to do so, now, would be state officials (justice of the peace) whose job it is to perform weddings and who work for the public (rather than being part of a private, though religious, practice).
geographomics 11y ago
Same drugs but with different intent. Assisted suicide is a compassionate medical treatment for end stage incurable diseases, with full consent of the person being treated. Execution by the state is a coercive, non-medical procedure that deliberately causes harm.
jkyle 11y ago
> What about letting people opt-out of providing abortions? No doctor, hospital, or medical facility has _ever_ been forced into providing abortions. Ever. None. > Or marrying gay couples? No private organization has or ever will be forced to marry gay couples. Ever. None. > A case could made for people refusing to do these as matters of conscience as well. They don't have to make a case. They can just do it. Now. And forever.

DanBC 11y ago

The other problem with sourcing is the manufacturers refusing to sell medications for use in execution. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/19/death-penalty-boycott-drugs-execution-new-low http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/19/death-penalty-b...

msandford 11y ago
It'd be nice if a bunch of other companies would be able to find their spines re: objectionable things the government does. Like spying on everyone all the time. You know, like teclos and the like. It's pretty crazy that drug companies are more ethical than telecoms. Especially considering all the problems with reproducability that we're seeing on the cancer treatment front and plummeting drug effectiveness.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Not sure about those ethics. If you read the article, the main supply restriction was imposed by the European Commission, following the UK government. The US company that used to make them "suspended production because it was suffering commercially as a result of having its drug connected to executions," not exactly based on moral principles. There's also the difference that telecoms have (if secret) court orders mandating them to do so, while drug companies only have a few sales to lose (even at the peak of 300+ executions/year, it's probably not a very lucrative business).
VLM 11y ago
Something to think about, is if most of the civilized world sees what the executioners are doing as inherently immoral or unethical, the government has nothing to lose by violating medication licenses and laws, its not like the rest of the world is going to see a tiny little delta in immorality or lack of ethics as being much worse. So simply civil forfeiture a pharmacy safe or a chemical plant warehouse, after all the .gov sees civil forfeiture as a universal good...