Contact:
Contact: Peter Warren, 310-548-5329; Karen Nikos, 916-551-2069; Ron Lopp, 916-551-2042

SACRAMENTO: Reacting to the flawed attempt by state officials to have physicians take an active role in executing a prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, the California Medical Assn. announced today that it is sponsoring a bill that would eliminate physician involvement in all future executions.

The bill by Assemblyman Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, and Assemblyman Alan Nakanishi, M.D., R-Lodi, would change California law to say: “The Department of Corrections shall not utilize a physician and surgeon to assist with or otherwise participate in the execution.” The bill does not yet have a number.

“Physicians should be treating people’s illnesses, not participating in their execution,” said CMA CEO Jack Lewin, M.D. “Participation in an execution goes against longstanding principles of professional ethics and is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath: First, Do No Harm.”

CMA has had a long history of opposing physician participation in executions. That opposition was rekindled this past week as physicians from around the state phoned and emailed CMA offices to express their upset and concern because the state had hired two anesthesiologists to participate in the execution of Michael Morales, which was to occur early today.

The bill’s authors felt that a change in law was needed.

"I am a strong supporter of the death penalty, but the job of the physician is to heal, not to kill," Nakanishi said. "Corrections Officers are responsible for carrying out the penalties decided by juries, not doctors. We cannot let rogue judges redefine the roll of doctors in society."

Assemblyman Lieu agreed. “This bill does not take a stand on the death penalty. It simply allows physicians to stay true to the oath they took.”

In 2001, CMA sponsored a bill by Senator John Burton that prohibited physicians from being compelled to participate in an execution. The bill protected physicians employed by the state Dept. of Corrections from being forced to violate medical ethics and professional standards.

The latest bill would go further and bar the state from having a physician participate in any way. Under the proposed legislation, participation would include rendering technical advice regarding the execution; prescribing, administering or supervising the use of any drug that is part of the execution procedure; monitoring vital signs on site or remotely; attending an execution as a physician; or determining the moment of death.

In the Morales case, a federal judge ruled that to ensure Morales did not suffer undue pain during his execution, San Quentin officials could choose to either administer fatal levels of sedatives exclusively or have an anesthesiologist present so that Morales was unconscious from a sedative before he received the standard mix of paralytic agents and heart-stopping chemicals. Although two anesthesiologists had agreed to participate by verifying that the execution was painless, those physicians backed out before the morning execution could take place when they apparently learned their role would include ensuring that the execution was painless. The physicians decided that their participation would be “ethically unacceptable.”