Do Death-Row Inmates Deserve Health Treatments

by CC0220 on February 10, 2015 - 2:07pm

To this day, the Death penalty is still permitted in more than 50 countries around the world, including the United States, China, Japan and many others very influential countries. In 2015, in the United States, 7 inmates have been scheduled to die by the hands of the State after having being found guilty of killing at least one victim. However, it usually takes the State a long time before applying the punishment. Those prisoners who get sentenced to death usually wait years before they actually receive their sentence, some of them up to 30 years. During those years, many of them get sick from living in poor conditions or simply from getting old. When a death-row inmate gets very sick, he or she is brought to a hospital to seek medical care. In the United-States, as one might know, medical care is extremely expensive. When prisoners need medical help, it is the state that pays for it. The state pays thousands of dollars to save someone who they have determined should die, and who will be killed sooner or later by that same State.

It is then relevant to ask oneself whether it is ethical for doctors to save those patients, to do everything in their power to keep them alive, to use time and resources to save someone who not only has caused a lot of harm to society, but whom the state has already decided to kill. The country from which those inmates come has decided that this person does not deserve to live. Isn’t it contradicting itself then to have its doctors work to save the prisoners’ lives?

If we follow the deontology way of think, which people do concerning this issue in the United States, doctors take an oath, the Hippocratic Oath, and have a moral obligation to do anything in their power to saved human life, regardless of who that person is. However, by doing so, doctors are not only wasting time and money, but they could be causing more harm than good to the community. Not only are those medical services costing a huge amount of money, but the prisoners they are saving might go on to harm other people in the future, like other inmates or security guards.

In order to avoid this problem, countries who still have the death penalty should simply apply the sentence soon after it is given to a criminal. This way, they would completely avoid this issue because the death-row inmates would not have time to get old and sick. If a country judges that someone does not deserve to live anymore, they should apply the death penalty in the following year.



Work Cited: 

Author unknow. Death Penalty Information Center. web. Feb 5th 2015.


Author unknown. Definition of Hippocratoc Oath.web. Feb 9th 2015.



I think what you said in your post is very thought-provoking and gives (background) information on the death penalty. I personally do agree with you in the statement of killing the convicted criminal soon after the conviction. The state might as well get something over with as soon as possible rather than just waiting up to thirty or more years before killing someone. But the following link gives evidence that would say otherwise:
It has been a huge debate on the frequency of how often the death penalty is being used in different countries, or even different cities of a single country (i.e.: different states f the U.S.). The lack of even death penalty enforcement, despite having the same policy in a single place, tends to be subjective. It has also been found that there have been convicted prisoners who have already been killed by the state but later to be proven innocent to through new (or newly looked over) evidence.

About the author