US clinics fear violence after execution of antiabortion murderer
BMJ 2003; 327 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7415.577-a (Published 11 September 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:577
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The execution of Mr Hill and the response by Dr Jacobs is an
unwelcome reminder of this appalling practice in the USA. The standard
technique of judicial killing is lethal injection and this must therefore
mean that physicians are heavily involved in the process. It has always
seemed to me that to participate in judicial killing is completely
incompatible with being a physician and that there is an opportunity to
focus on these individuals as a way of undermining the death penalty. A
starting point would be for organisations such as the BMA to state that
physicians participating in the death penalty would not be eligible for
membership and to put pressure on sister organsiations in those countries
that maintain the death penalty to operate a similar policy with the
ultimate ambition of isolating such individuals within the profession. The
same could apply to other medical professions such as nurses, pharmacists
etc
Competing interests:
I am a member of Amnesty International which campaigns against the death penalty
Competing interests: No competing interests
Paul Hill clearly believed not only that abortion is equivalent to
murder, but also that it is OK to kill someone who has taken a life. The
second view is something that most civilised people would find deeply
repugnant. It is regrettable that the American 'justice' system has found
such a dramatic way to reinforce that view.
Competing interests:
Member of Amnesty International, which campaigns against the death penalty.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Ultimate Insanity
Murdering in order to prevent murder? Society has been going steadily
madder; I don't want to conceive of anything crazier than this situation.
How can "fundamentalists" or others claim to be religious (regardless
of the religion, or sect thereof) if they're prepared to murder, or to
incite others to murder, regardless of the reason?
Whether or not I am for or against abortion is not the issue for me
here. The issue is that one who respects unborn babies' rights to life
must also respect the right to life of one who performs abortions,
whatever the reasons given. What's to say someone born into a desperately
unwelcome situation would not grow up to perform abortions?
I trust Hill did not mind being put to death. I wonder what/if he
thinks now? I don't believe in heaven and hell, but if there is such a
thing, I really hope he's in the latter. It's people like him who make
life hell on earth for so many others.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests