Death Penalty Thailand: Call for Abolition

Nation, 13^th May 2006

Time is ripe to abolish capital punishment in the Kingdom

This is a celebratory year for Thailand, and it would be a momentous achievement to crown the across-the-board progress we've achieved over the past 60 years if we were to renounce capital punishment. I realise many people, perhaps even the majority, would initially object, fearing the worst.

It is not surprising that Europe has taken the lead in banning capital punishment, the culmination of centuries of struggle for justice and equality that began with religious toleration and the Enlightenment and has led to present humane views.

But it wasn't that long ago that hundreds of crimes in England - even what are now petty ones, like stealing a loaf of bread - were capital offences. As protests were raised against this injustice, the idea of capital punishment meted out for many crimes became repellent. In a relatively brief period, Europe has reduced to zero the number of capital offences.

Thailand's experience has not been the same, of course. But we have succeeded in reducing capital punishment to only a few offences; I feel we can telescope the rest of the European experience without further delay and arrive at the same consensus.

As Buddhists from all around the world gather in Bangkok, it would be fitting if a voice among them were raised in support of this idea of compassion and reverence for life, which, after all, their founder espoused thousands of years ago.

Trirat Petchsingh

Nonthaburi

Death Penalty Thailand: Response to 'Morality of Capital Punishment'

The Nation: 7th May 2006

While The Nation is to be praised in raising the issue of capital punishment, which has great relevance to the Thai justice system, there are questions to be asked from a Thai perspective about opinions based on another culture. Capital punishment is rightly strongly debated within the US, but elements of that debate tend to dominate discussion elsewhere.
Gary Becker is a well known contributor to the debate and his usual stand is to discuss the economics of capital punishment. Well and good, for he is an economist. However, while retaining the core of his earlier arguments, he now writes under the banner of ‘morality’, and while economics is as remote from morality as physics or chemistry, we are still reminded that he is a Nobel Laureate in economics. Well, every man is entitled to his opinion, but it has little to do with morality. While rightly excluding ‘revenge and other possible motives’ he supports capital punishment only because he believes that it deters other murders. To contest this argument we would have to enter into the context of the US crime scene. Those more familiar with the practical aspects of crime in the US assert that, even in premeditated murder,
motivation does not depend on a balancing of the severity of capital punishment against the urge to kill. The belief of Becker is also contested by the results of a US research poll in 1995 which showed that the majority of police chiefs do not believe that the death penalty is an effective deterrent.
The views of Becker are opposed by other academics in the US who have access to related crime and judicial data. However, even at this distance from the scene, one can reject the non sequitur of Becker’s arguments: “Opponents of capital punishment frequently proclaim that the state has no moral right to take anyone’s life…. Yet that is absolutely the wrong conclusion for anyone who believes that capital punishment deters”.
“Absolutely”! And as far as moral argument goes, this is a mere repetition of the inadmissible principle that the end justifies the means.
But the most serious fault in Becker’s article follows his admission of worry about the risk of executing the innocent and his highly ingenuous statement that “there are very few, if any, documented cases of innocent people being killed”. If he cared to look he would have found documented cases. But it is true that there is little effort or resource to prove the innocence of those already executed. Instead, there is the declared innocence of 122 people waiting execution on death row. Becker excludes these people from his conclusion arguing that their exoneration mostly on DNA related evidence is a proof that the innocent escape execution. But how many others were not exonerated when the majority on death row do not have effective legal representation and when normal legal procedure leads inexorably to execution. And what of cases of conviction where there is no available DNA evidence? Of greater authority than Becker are the actions of Governor G. H. Ryan of Illinois who declared a moratorium on execution when he found that 13 of those on death row in his state were innocent; or the declaration of US District Judge Rakoff of New York that the federal death penalty is unconstitutional and violative of due process because it creates “an undue risk of executing innocent people”

Reflecting on the application of Becker’s ideas to Thailand we might propose that the danger of wrongful execution is certainly greater where confessions under torture are prevalent and where access to DNA evidence to exonerate the innocent is certainly extremely limited. Nevertheless, his affirmation that capital punishment should be limited to cases of murder is a worthy reminder that execution for drug crimes is not justifiable. Confident in the ‘enormous protection’ of the appeals process in the US he would also be appalled by the practice of extrajudicial execution. For the rest, the debate is best left to those who can and do counter Becker’s arguments on their local relevance.
Danthong Breen
Union for Civil Liberty
109 Suthisarnwinitchai Road
Samsennok, Huaykwang
Bangkok

Morality of Capital Punishment

Nation 6th May 2006

*The morality of capital punishment*

European governments are adamantly opposed to capital punishment - the European Union bans it outright - and some Europeans consider its use i the United States barbaric. Indeed, many European intellectuals argue that not just capital punishment, but also punishment in general, does not deter criminals.

But whereas Europeans, with crime rates well below American rates for the past half-century, could long afford to be relatively "soft" on most crimes, they have seen their crime rates increase sharply during the past 20 years. By contrast, American rates have fallen, in part because of greater use of punishment.

This includes capital punishment. I support executing some peopleconvicted of murder, because - and only because - I believe that it deters other murders. If I did not believe that, I would oppose capital punishment, because revenge and other possible motives should not be a basis for public policy.

Serious empirical research on capital punishment in the US began with a pioneering study by Isaac Ehrlich, published in 1975 in The American Economic Review. Some subsequent studies have sometimes found a much weaker deterrent effect, while others have found a much stronger effect. The available data are quite limited, however, so one should not base any conclusions solely on the econometric evidence. Of course, public policy on any punishment cannot wait until the evidence is perfect. But even with the limited quantitative evidence available, there are good reasons to believe that capital punishment deters. Most people, and murderers in particular, fear death, especially when it follows swiftly and with considerable certainty following the commission of a murder. As David Hume put it in discussing suicide: "No man ever threw away life, while it was worth keeping. For such is our natural horror of death." Likewise, Arthur Schopenhauer believed: "As soon as the terrors of life reach a point at which they outweigh the terrors of death, a man will put an end to his life. But the terrors of death offer considerable resistance."

Opponents of capital punishment frequently proclaim that the state has no moral right to take anyone's life, including that of the most reprehensible murderer. Yet that is absolutely the wrong conclusion for anyone who believes that capital punishment deters. To see why, suppose that for each murderer executed (instead of, say, receiving life imprisonment), the number of murders is reduced by three, which is a much lower number than Ehrlich's and some other estimates of the deterrent effect. This implies that for each murderer not executed, three innocent victims would die. In fact, the government would indirectly be "taking" many lives if it did not use capital punishment.

Saving three innocent lives for every person executed seems like a very attractive trade-off, and even two lives saved per execution seems like a persuasive benefit-cost ratio for capital punishment. Admittedly, however, the argument in favour of capital punishment becomes less clear-cut as the number of lives saved per execution falls. But even ifonly one life were saved per execution, the trade-off might still be desirable if the life saved were much better than the life taken, which would usually be the case.

Many object to comparing the quality of the life spared and the life taken. Yet I do not see how to avoid such a comparison. Consider a career criminal who robs and kills a victim who led a decent life and left several children and a spouse behind. Suppose it would be possible to save the life of an innocent victim by executing such a criminal. To me, it is obvious that saving such a victim's life must count for more than taking the criminal's life. Obviously, not all cases are so unambiguous, but a comparison of the qualities of individual lives must be part of any reasonable social policy.

This helps explain why capital punishment should be used only for murders and not for lesser crimes. When the trade-off is between taking lives and, say, reducing property theft, the case for milder punishments is far stronger. Although severe assaults, including some gruesome rapes, may approach some murders in severity and conceivably call for capital punishment, I do not support its use in these cases.

A powerful argument for reserving capital punishment for murders is "marginal deterrence". If assault were punished with execution, perpetrators would have an incentive to kill their victims to avoid discovery (which is a major reason why the severity of punishments more generally should be matched to the severity of crimes).

One complication is that capital punishment may make a murderer fight harder to avoid being captured, which could lead to more deaths. But while marginal deterrence is important, I believe the resistance of murderers to being captured, possibly at the expense of their own lives,is really indirect evidence that criminals do fear capital punishment.

Of course, I worry about the risk of executing the innocent. My support for capital punishment would weaken greatly if the rate of killing innocent people were as large as that claimed by many. However, I believe that the appeals process in the US offers enormous protection, not so much against wrongful conviction as against wrongful execution, so that there are very few, if any, documented cases of innocent people being killed. And this process has been strengthened enormously with the development of DNA identification.

Again, the debate about capital punishment is essentially a debate about deterrence (which may be reduced by lengthy appeals). I can understand that some people are sceptical about the evidence, although I believe they are wrong about both that and the common sense of the issue. It is very disturbing to take someone's life, even a murderer's life; but sometimes, highly unpleasant actions are necessary to prevent even worse behaviour that takes the lives of innocent victims.

Gary Becker is a Nobel laureate in economics and professor of economics and sociology at the University of Chicago in Illinois.

Gary Becker

Death Penalty Thailand ; Lethal Injection Unacceptable

In the United States, Thailand's model in introducing execution by lethal injection, evidence for the unacceptability of the method becomes stronger and protest against its use increases.
The following is an extract from an editorial in "The New York Times" of April 26th, 2006:

'In lethal injection, three different chemicals are administered in sequence. The first is an anesthetic, another paralyzes the muscles and stops breathing, and a third stops the heart. Improper administration of the anesthetic can have the ghoulish effect of leaving the prisoner able to feel the tremendous pain of being killed by the poison that is injected into him while rendering him unable to communicate his agony by sound or gestures.

In a "friend of the court" brief, Physicians for Human Rights warned that if the chemicals weren't used correctly, they could "cause an inmate to suffocate, while consciously experiencing the blinding pain of" a coronary arrest. Meanwhile, it said, "onlookers believe him to be unconscious and insensitive to any pain."

Lethal injection is used today in nearly every death penalty state, but it is facing increased criticism. In a recent report, Human Rights Watch declared that "there is mounting evidence that prisoners may have experienced excruciating pain during their executions."'

Thailand need wait no further to suspend the use of this very questionable method of execution

Death Penalty and Sale of Body Organs

On 25th April ‘Le Monde’ newspaper published an article on the sale of body organs in China of which more than 80% are taken from executed prisoners:
An International Centre for transplantation in Shenyang, North-East China is advertising the availability of organs for transplant, especially in December and January, the period before the Chinese New Year when most executions occur. It appears that organs can be ordered before the executions are carried out. Analysis for compatibility of ‘donor’ and recipient are made in advance. Japanese are the most numerous customers. Koreans, Ukrainians and Israelis are also customers.

Prices quoted are:
Kidney $62,000
Liver $100,000
Pancreas $150,000 to $170,000
Heart $160,000
Cornea $30,000
Prices include the cost of the operation and hospital care.
Much cheaper transplants are available in other parts of China. A potential customer in Ningxia was offered a kidney for 10,000 euros and told to contact the police or doctors to arrange a place in a clinic.
20,000 transplants are carried out in China in one year
A Japanese intermediary commented “This business is to the advantage of everyone, the hospital, local functionaries; all make money from foreign patients”
Between 2004 and the beginning of 2006 seven Japanese patients between 30 and 50 years old, died after kidney transplants in Shenyang, Shanghai, and Changsha. Malaysians have also died soon after similar transplants.
In March of this year the Ministry of Health introduced a temporary ruling forbidding traffic in organs. Hospitals were also forbidden to use organs without the consent of the donor. Although it does not say so explicitly, the ruling attempts to regulate the use of organs from executed criminals.
A report of the American State Department states that there are many indications that organs are removed from prisoners who are still alive and that executions are timed to meet the timetable of transplants.
While the traffic in the organs of executed criminals is a taboo subject in China the Chinese Vice-Minister of Health, Huang Jiefu, who is himself a surgeon specialised in kidney transplant, admitted during a recent conference in Manila that 95% of transplant organs originated from executions.

Nazanin, teenager awaiting execution in Iran

The Iranian courts have sentenced Nazanin to death by hanging for having reportedly admitted stabbing one of three men who attempted to rape her and her 16 year old niece. She was 17 years old at the time of the attempted rape.
Her sentence is still subject to review by the Court of Appeal.
At least eight minors in Iran were hanged in 2005
A petitition to save her may be signed by clicking to the link on the right.
Allah is all merciful

Death Penalty in Malaysia

A move to abandon the death penalty in Malaysia would have momentous effect on its practice in Thailand, just as a similar move in Thailand would surely affect practice in Malaysia. It is with great interest that we learn of a statement by a Malaysian government minister favouring abolition.

Cabinet minister in charge of law supports calls for abolishing death penalty
A Malaysian Cabinet minister in charge of law said he supports calls for abolishing Malaysia's death penalty, which is largely used against drug traffickers, a news report said Tuesday. Nazri Aziz, minister in charge of law in the Prime Minister's Department, was quoted as saying by the New Straits Times newspaper.
Nazri was responding to an announcement over the weekend by the Malaysian Bar Council that it would campaign for abolishment of the death penalty.
Nazri and his spokesmen could not immediately be reached for comment. The Malaysian Bar Council said the death penalty is barbaric, inhumane and an insufficient deterrent for crime.
Malaysia is one of 76 countries which still impose the death penalty. It is mandatory for murder, certain firearms offenses and for trafficking in heroin, cocaine, opium and marijuana, and for offenses against the king. Possession of drugs is presumed to be trafficking.
The death penalty, which is administered by hanging, can also be imposed at the discretion of a judge for kidnapping, associating with people carrying arms or explosives and waging war against the ruler.
Since 1970, Malaysia has hanged 359 people, 40 of them in the last 10 years. Most were convicted of drug trafficking.
There are 159 prisoners on death row.
The Malaysian Bar Council has also called for an immediate moratorium on all death sentences pending amendments to the law.
But Nazri said that was not possible.
"The death sentence has been part of our laws for a long time. It goes with the fabric of the whole system. After discussions are held, hopefully the attorney general will advise the government", he said. (New Straits Times)

Inadequate Defense Causes Reverse of Death Sentence

It is a commonplace of the death penalty that whether an accused is sentenced to death or not depends on the effectiveness of the defence lawyer. The case of an accused who must rely on a court appointed lawyer is particularly questionable. What is the criterion of diligence for a lawyer neither chosen nor paid by the defendent?
A recent decision by the US Supreme Court took an unusual initiative in overturning a death sentence in such a case:
WASHINGTON, June 20 - The Supreme Court overturned a Pennsylvania man's death sentence on Monday on the ground that his lawyers' failure to search his record for evidence that could have persuaded the jury to spare his life fell below minimum constitutional standards for the effective assistance of counsel....The point of contention among the justices in the case was the failure of defense lawyers to examine the file of a rape case in which the accused had been convicted 14 years earlier. The case was germane because the prosecution had announced its intention to use the case to show that the accused was a previously convicted violent felon, one of the "aggravating circumstances" on which the Pennsylvania death penalty law permits juries to rely in imposing a sentence of death.
Are justices in Thai courts aware of a duty to assess the effectiveness of defence lawyers?

Religion and Death Penalty

Moral issues are a primary interest of all religions and religion should influence thinking on capital punishment. However, in the matter of capital punishment as in that of war, divergence between ideal teaching and practice may be expected.

The prohibition on the killing of Cain who murdered his brother Abel, related in the Jewish Bible, is a clear teaching against capital punishment. However, other texts of the Bible have been quoted to support capital punishment as well as to oppose it. Modern Israel has abolished capital punishment for ordinary crimes. The execution of Eichmann for his part in the Holocaust followed old patterns of retribution.

Christianity is a unique religion in that the acknowledged founder, Jesus, was himself executed as a criminal by the cruel method of crucifixion. The crucifix is the symbol of Christianity. If translated to modern imagery the symbol might have been the gallows or the gantry used for lethal injection. An incident is recorded in the Christian New Testament where Jesus intervened to stop execution by stoning of a woman taken in adultery by declaring “Let him who is without fault throw the first stone”. It is strange that this ‘fatwa’ by a prophet is not quoted in the same context in Muslim countries. Historically, Christianity has accepted the death penalty; even the Vatican as a papal state had its own executioner. However, the previous pope was steadfastly against capital punishment and the Catholic Church has become staunchly abolitionist. The fact that the death penalty has been abolished throughout Christian South America may be ascribed in part to the influence of a Catholic culture.

The Muslim code of law, Sharia, includes the death penalty. However its application is far removed from the practice of fundamentalist Muslim states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran who are high on the list of world executioners. Moderation is illustrated in an account of a person brought before the Prophet on the capital charge of apostasy. It was charged that the accused had thrown his spear into the sky saying ‘I want to kill you, God’. When asked by the Prophet the reason for his action the man replied that he was angry at God because his loved one had died. The Prophet opposed the death penalty by asking: ‘Is it not enough for you that he believes in God to want to kill him’. On another occasion he went to great lengths in an attempt to stop the stoning of an adulterous woman. Mercy is Islam’s hallmark because it is Allah’s foremost characteristic. Capital punishment can follow only complete certainty of guilt with support of witnesses. Repentance and forgiveness are grounds for the remission of all penalties, in contrast to the practice of many Muslim states. Of the 48 Muslim-majority states worldwide, 23 can be considered abolitionist in various forms, whereas the retentionists are 25.

In principle Buddhism should be abolitionist. One of the five precepts for all Buddhists is the principle of abstaining from taking life. That all life is to be treasured is a logical extension of ‘ahimsa’ or non-violence. This stand is related to the belief that rehabilitation is a possibility for every one, even the cruellest murderer. The consequence for a ruler is stated in a 2^nd or 3^rd century A.D. text, ‘The Precious Garland of Advice for the King’:

“Once you have analysed the angry

Murderers and recognised them well,

You should banish them without

Killing or tormenting them”

It is recorded that the regimes of many enlightened Buddhist rulers abolished the death penalty.

One may conclude that the main religions of the world which are represented in Thailand are valuable allies in the movement against the death penalty. It is important to distinguish between a true interpretation of these religions and examples of distorted practice which are inconsistent with authentic beliefs.

Statement of Thai medical personnel against participation in executions

Thailand has introduced execution by lethal injection on the assumption that a method perfected in the United States of America must be the most satisfactory. However,
Thai doctors have already condemned participation in the executions by doctors or nurses.

แพทย์กับการประหารชีวิต
เฮนรี่ ไวลต์, พ.บ.*, ชุมศักดิ์ พฤกษาพงษ์, พ.บ.**,
สุขิต เผ่าสวัสดิ์, พ.บ.***, เยื้อน ตันนิรันดร, พ.บ.***, สุรศักดิ์ ฐานีพานิชสกุล, พ.บ.***
นับตั้งแต่ปีพ.ศ.2478 เป็นต้นมา ประเทศไทยได้ใช้วิธียิงเป้าเป็นการประหารชีวิตไปแล้ว 279 ราย ในจำนวนนี้มี ผู้หญิง 1 ราย ซึ่งต้องคำพิพากษาในข้อหาลักพา ขณะนี้มีผู้ต้องหาอีก 53 ราย ที่รอการประหารชีวิตอยู่ โดยหนึ่งในจำนวนนั้นเป็นผู้หญิง ส่วนใหญ่เป็นผู้ต้องหาค้ายาเสพติด ฆาตกรรมและข่มขืนแล้วฆ่าเด็ก แต่ละรายมีโอกาสอุทธรณ์หรือแม้แต่การยื่นฎีกาขอพระราชทานอภัยโทษจากพระเจ้าอยู่หัว ปี พ.ศ. 2541 ที่ผ่านมามีการประหารชีวิตเพียงสองราย แต่มีบางกระแสกระตุ้นให้เร่งกระบวนการพิจารณาคดีให้จบสิ้นเร็วขึ้น โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งคดียาเสพติด ทั้งนี้เพื่อหวังจะให้ผู้คิดจะทำผิดเกิดความหวาดกลัว
เท่าที่ผ่านมาแพทย์และ/หรือพยาบาลมีส่วนเกี่ยวข้องกับกระบวนการประหารชีวิตได้ 2 ทางคือ ตรวจรับรองว่า ผู้ต้องหายังมีชีวิตและมีสติสัมปชัญญะหรือว่าตายแล้ว
เมื่อเร็วๆนี้กรมราชทัณฑ์เสนอให้มีการเปลี่ยนแปลงรูปแบบของการประหารชีวิตจากการยิงเป้ามาเป็นการฉีดยาให้ตาย โดยอ้างว่าวิธีใหม่ต้องด้วยหลักมนุษยธรรมมากกว่าและเป็นไปตามมาตรฐานนานาชาติในการปฏิบัติตามคำพิพากษาของศาล หากแนวคิดใหม่นี้สามารถก่อให้เกิดผลในทางปฏิบัติแล้ว แพทย์และ / หรือพยาบาลก็อาจต้องเข้ามามีส่วนเกี่ยวข้อง
คณะทำงานด้านจริยธรรมของแพทยสมาคมแห่งประเทศไทยฯ ไม่ขอวิจารณ์ประเด็นการทำโทษผู้ต้องหาด้วย การประหารชีวิต แต่จะตั้งข้อสังเกตว่า การประหารชีวิตเป็นกิริยาอาการที่ไม่สามารถทำอย่างถูกสุขลักษณะหรือต้องด้วยมนุษยธรรมได้ ข้อสำคัญคือในหลายๆประเทศได้ปรากฎว่ามีการประหารชีวิตผู้บริสุทธิ์ไปด้วย แพทย์และพยาบาลมิได้เป็น ผู้พิพากษาและคงไม่สมควรอย่างยิ่งเป็นผู้ช่วยในการประหารชีวิตคน ในเมื่อบุคคลทั้งสองวิชาชีพต่างมีอุดมการณ์และให้สัตย์ปฏิญานตนไว้ว่าจะช่วยปกป้องชีวิตและทำให้ผู้ป่วยเจ็บหายจากโรคโดยไม่ทำอันตรายต่อสุขภาพร่างกาย การเข้าร่วมกระบวนการประหารชีวิตในรูปแบบใดก็ตามจึงเป็นการกระทำที่ละเมิดกฎข้อบังคับทางจริยธรรมตามมาตรฐานสากลแห่งวิชาชีพ ซึ่งองค์กรแพทย์หลายแห่งโดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งแพทยสมาคมโลก ได้ให้คำจำกัดความของประเด็นนี้พร้อมทั้งห้ามมิให้สมาชิกเข้าไปมีส่วนเกี่ยวข้องกับการทรมานหรือประหารชีวิตคน อย่างไรก็ตามปัญหาที่อาจเกิดขึ้นในประเทศไทย โดยเฉพาะแพทย์และพยาบาลที่ปฏิบัติราชการอยู่ในกระบวนการยุติธรรม คือ จะทำอย่างไรหากได้รับคำสั่งให้เข้าร่วมกระบวนการประหารชีวิต ดังนั้นเพื่อแก้ปัญหานี้ จึงควรที่จะต้องมีกฎข้อบังคับซึ่งเอื้ออำนวยให้แพทย์และพยาบาลสามารถปฏิเสธการเข้าร่วมกิจกรรมอันขัดต่อจริยธรรมวิชาชีพโดยไม่ต้องรับโทษทัณฑ์อันเกิดจากการขัดคำสั่ง ปรากฎว่าในบางประเทศได้ทำอย่างที่กล่าวและ น่านำมาพิจารณาปฏิบัติในประเทศไทย
ถ้าหากจะมีการประหารชีวิตจริงๆ คงจะต้องพิจารณาเลือกปฏิบัติต่ออาชญากรที่กระทำอาชญากรรมร้ายแรงและมีการพิจารณาความที่พิสูจน์ยืนยันอย่างชนิดที่ปราศจากข้อสงสัยใดๆ ส่วนในประเด็นที่ว่าผู้ต้องหาจะต้องตายด้วยกระสุนปืนหรือสารพิษนั้น ไม่ควรต้องพึ่งพาแพทย์หรือพยาบาล
คำสำคัญ : แพทย์, การประหารชีวิต
* สถานเสาวภา, สภากาชาดไทย, กรุงเทพฯ 10330
** ฝ่ายศัลยกรรม, โรงพยาบาลตำรวจ, กรุงเทพฯ 10330
*** ภาควิชาสูติศาสตร์-นรีเวชวิทยา, คณะแพทยศาสตร์ จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย, กรุงเทพฯ 10330

There are increasing objections to the method of lethal injection in the United States itself
Most recently the execution of Michael Morales in the State of California has been postponed indefinately when two anesthesiologists refused to participate in the execution:

"Morales, 46, of Stockton was to have been put to death at 7:30 p.m. at San Quentin State Prison for raping, bludgeoning and stabbing 17-year-old Terri Winchell near Lodi in January 1981. The execution originally was scheduled for 12:01 a.m. Tuesday, but it was postponed when two anesthesiologists withdrew their agreement to monitor the injection of a three-drug sequence and to make sure Morales was unconscious as he was being put to death."
The refusal of the anesthesiologists to participate is in line with the declaration of the American Society of Anesthesiologists:

"Where ASA stands on lethal injection
ASA does not take a position on capital punishment, as this is not the practice of medicine.
ASA recognizes the American Medical Association's ethical principles about physician participation in lethal injections, in particular that physicians should not participate in executions, either by direct action or by performing ancillary functions. This includes making recommendations about drugs to be used.
Physicians are healers, not executioners. The doctor-patient relationship depends upon the inviolate principle that a doctor uses his or her medical expertise only for the benefit of patients"