Oklahoma Pharmacy Won’t Provide Drugs for Execution

Good for them. The job of medicine is to heal, not kill. Part of the perversion of our culture of death is that we lie to ourselves by surrounding killing with a neat, clean aesthetic. To do that, we take the one profession whose job is to save lives and order it to do our butchery for us. If we are so hell-bent on making people dead in order to keep up with advanced civilizations like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Red China, and Iran, we should have the courage to take up stones and do it in the public square, spattered with the blood of our victims. It is, after all, about vengeance. So we should do the dirty deed ourselves if we think it’s so vital. Like Jesus did with the adulterous woman.

Meanwhile, this pharmacy did the right thing. The still righter thing would be to abolish the death penalty.

"From Jonathan Liedl's piece:Hittinger defines malignant technology as “the systematic application of tools to culture, ..."

Is Technology Morally Neutral?
"Hmmm... I'm having a difficult time deciding the right way to reply because I think ..."

Is Technology Morally Neutral?
"Lewandowski, another sociopath Catholic who flaunts his faith - like Paul Ryan, Steve Bannon, Kellyanne ..."

Our Post-Satire Age
"Comment keeps getting deleted. Will try one last time...See Russell Hittinger's essay "Christopher Dawson on ..."

Is Technology Morally Neutral?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Marthe Lépine

    An interesting fact from the linked post is that it took some 25 years between the crime and the execution date and – the convicted murderer in question did not escape, or did not murder someone else while incarcerated, so why not just keep him where he is, safely out of the way? I think that that fact in itself can be used to prove that the death penalty is not accomplishing anything remotely “useful” for society. In fact I find it strange that the matter is still debated in the US, while in my country up north it has been settled so long ago.

  • Elaine S.

    Two thoughts:

    1. I personally would prefer to see the death penalty abolished, but for those states or countries that insist on having it, why not use a firing squad. There are a lot more licensed and trained gun owners than physicians or pharmacists, and in cases involving really heinous crimes (e.g., child murders, serial killers) there would probably be no shortage of folks willing to volunteer for the job. Plus, it might actually be quicker and less painful to the condemned than a lethal injection anyway.

    2. As someone also mentioned in the linked post: wonder how many of the people who praise the pharmacy for refusing to cooperate in an execution would feel the same way if the business or one of its pharmacists refused to cooperate in a drug-induced abortion.

  • kenofken

    The death penalty is done in this country. No one is going to sell them these drugs and the states don’t have the stomach for carrying out actual hands-on executions.

  • ImTim

    Today I discovered that in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, a man was not permitted to be ordained if he had been a judge who had passed a death sentence. (c.984) The Church has taken this issue seriously for a long time. It’s time for us to, too.

    • Dave G.

      That’s interesting. At that time, of course, the Church still endorsed the use of Capital punishment. I wonder what that says about the Church’s approach to things (and not just capital punishment) then compared to now.

      • ImTim

        I think “endorsed” is too strong. The classical position of the Church (according to Dulles) is basically what we find in the catechism: The State has the right to execute, in serious cases, for the good of society, and if necessary.

        The “change” isn’t in the principles, but in contemporary penal systems. In short, the penal system as it exists in most of the world makes the “necessary” component “practically non-existent” (JPII)

        • Dave G.

          Perhaps something other than endorse. But it is strange that we put such emphasis on the penal system which, in most other cases, is highly criticized by the same bishops relying on its efficacy in preventing crime. I’m more on the ‘because of the inherent problems within the system’ than ‘because the system can now prevent crime.’ I’m not sure what that last idea means. A fellow was killed in a town just north of us a couple years ago by two escaped convicts. I don’t think his family has the same faith in our system, at least not the faith needed to justify the sudden ending to 2000 pretty consistent years on the subject.