Is it unethical for death penalty opponents to block drugs used in executions?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I've heard people say before botched executions can be blamed on European companies refusing to import drugs used in executions to the US or opponents in court suing on bureaucratic grounds to make obtaining the drugs needed more difficult and states resorting to more underhanded measures and less reliable drugs.

I say no though. If you morally oppose the death penalty it seems absurd to still say you should still cooperate because otherwise the death penalty would be worse. I know that if I had the qualifications I would refuse to ever in any way participate in an execution.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

While I withhold making ethical judgments as their intentions are good, it is most definitely ironic.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

While I withhold making ethical judgments as their intentions are good, it is most definitely ironic.

Not necessarily. Think of the following scenario.

You're a soldier in some sort of military operation and found an enemy combatant though he's no longer a threat to you or unarmed. One of your comrades wants to execute him anyway. He asks you to do it. We'll assume you're a very good shot and you could execute someone with a single shot that if done properly is virtually painless if done below the base of the brain, but you refuse. The other soldier says he'll do it instead and then kneecaps the enemy combatant and gives him several other non-lethal shots and lets him bleed to death.

Does that make you responsible for the brutal killing for refusing to do it yourself?

[politicallefty]

No. It is not unethical to refuse to have any role in an execution. The blood is on the hands of those that feel it is necessary to impose the death penalty.

[IceSpear]

Of course. It shows that they don't actually care about someone's pain and suffering, they just want to score political points at the expense of death row inmates.

[DC Al Fine]

No. There's always the noose.

[Meursault]

It's entirely possible to be both a death penalty opponent and an anti-humanist, defined as someone who rejects pain minimization as a basis for ethical action. So no.

[TNF]

No.

Not blocking the drugs would be unethical, because the drugs in question aid in someone being put to death.

[IceSpear]

While I withhold making ethical judgments as their intentions are good, it is most definitely ironic.

Not necessarily. Think of the following scenario.

You're a soldier in some sort of military operation and found an enemy combatant though he's no longer a threat to you or unarmed. One of your comrades wants to execute him anyway. He asks you to do it. We'll assume you're a very good shot and you could execute someone with a single shot that if done properly is virtually painless if done below the base of the brain, but you refuse. The other soldier says he'll do it instead and then kneecaps the enemy combatant and gives him several other non-lethal shots and lets him bleed to death.

Does that make you responsible for the brutal killing for refusing to do it yourself?

The thing is, these death penalty opponents know that just cutting off access to the drugs isn't going to stop the executions. So they're essentially using the death row inmates as pawns, trying to get the state to blink first and abolish the death penalty. It's a great example of "the ends justify the means" mentality. If our true concern is for the death row inmates, we should be making their executions as quick and painless as possible, not to greatly increase their suffering on the off chance that executions are completely abolished.

[NewYorkExpress]

It's unethical if that's the only reason for doing so or if the drugs have no other use.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

While I withhold making ethical judgments as their intentions are good, it is most definitely ironic.

Not necessarily. Think of the following scenario.

You're a soldier in some sort of military operation and found an enemy combatant though he's no longer a threat to you or unarmed. One of your comrades wants to execute him anyway. He asks you to do it. We'll assume you're a very good shot and you could execute someone with a single shot that if done properly is virtually painless if done below the base of the brain, but you refuse. The other soldier says he'll do it instead and then kneecaps the enemy combatant and gives him several other non-lethal shots and lets him bleed to death.

Does that make you responsible for the brutal killing for refusing to do it yourself?

The thing is, these death penalty opponents know that just cutting off access to the drugs isn't going to stop the executions. So they're essentially using the death row inmates as pawns, trying to get the state to blink first and abolish the death penalty. It's a great example of "the ends justify the means" mentality. If our true concern is for the death row inmates, we should be making their executions as quick and painless as possible, not to greatly increase their suffering on the off chance that executions are completely abolished.

My true concern, and reason for opposing the death penalty, is not because of death row inmates (well at least not those who aren't actually innocent of the crimes they were convicted of.)