Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, April 29, 1994 TAG: 9404290143
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Medium
The usual doctor refused to be present Wednesday night, saying he now thinks it's unethical to participate in executions.
Dr. Balvir L. Kapil is the first physician to refuse to be present during an execution since a ruling by the American Medical Association that is likely to stir national debate on medical ethics.
Kapil, chief physician for the Department of Corrections, took a vacation day Wednesday so he would not have to pronounce Timothy W. Spencer dead. He cited the AMA's statement that physician participation in executions violates medical ethics.
Dr. Alvin Harris, a private physician who also works at Southampton Correctional Center, had no qualms about filling in for Kapil, who previously had declared the deaths of 12 executed prisoners.
``The AMA has no authority in the commonwealth of Virginia,'' Harris said Thursday in a telephone interview from his office in Franklin. ``The AMA is not great God almighty.''
He noted that state law requires a physician to be present during an execution and to declare the inmate dead. ``Their ruling is in conflict with state law,'' he said.
As for Kapil, he may no longer face the ethical dilemma of whether to attend executions. He said he has been transferred from his job as chief physician to another position in the department.
Kapil said Thursday that he was told his refusal to be present for Spencer's execution ``had nothing to do with it.''
Ben Hawkins, assistant director of the Department of Corrections, denied that Kapil had been placed in another job. ``He has not been transferred,'' Hawkins said.
Kapil became uncomfortable with his role in executions after the AMA issued a strongly worded statement last month saying physician participation can be a breach of ethics. The statement elaborated on a little-known policy that was adopted in 1980 and clarified in 1992, said AMA spokesman Jack Segal.
``The policy is designed to protect physicians from stepping across a boundary that's very important,'' said Dr. Nancy Dickey, former chairwoman of the AMA's Council on Ethics and Judicial Affairs.
She said the AMA has no problem with doctors certifying death outside the death chamber. But if a doctor checks on an inmate in the death chamber and finds that he is still alive, it puts the physician in an untenable position of having to tell the executioner to take further steps to kill the inmate.
Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said he supports the AMA position.
``Doctors should not participate in executions or use their medical skills basically to punish people,'' he said.
He said the AMA's policy is intended ``to keep public trust in the idea that doctors will use their skills to heal people and not hurt people.''
Norman Fost, director of a medical ethics program at the University of Wisconsin Medical School, said the issue ``is more complicated than the AMA position lets on.''
Said Fost, ``It's not so clearly a breach of a physician's duty in my view.''
by CNB