October 17, 2008

Carlo Musso, M.D.
President, CorrectHealth
Fax: 770-692-4754

Dear Dr. Musso:

You have a crucial decision to make. You may be in the position to help spare the life of a very likely innocent prisoner, Troy Davis. While it may seem that your decision has already been made for you because you are expected to provide medical oversight for his execution, I ask you to think again.

The code of ethics of the Society of Correctional Physicians, of which I understand you are a member, releases you from your obligation by unequivocally stating, "The correctional professional shall not be involved in any aspect of execution of the death penalty."

The American Medical Association also releases you from any obligation to oversee an execution. AMA president William Plested is quoted in a 2006 statement:

"The guidelines in the AMA Code of Medical Ethics address physician participation in executions involving lethal injection. The ethical opinion explicitly prohibits selecting injection sites for executions by lethal injection, starting intravenous lines, prescribing, administering, or supervising the use of lethal drugs, monitoring vital signs, on site or remotely, and declaring death.

"As the voice of American medicine, the AMA urges all physicians to remain dedicated to our ethical obligations that prohibit involvement in capital punishment."
(http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/1... )

Should you still feel an obligation to participate in the execution of Troy Davis, I'd like you to look at the obligations of some of the others involved in this case, how they did or did not carry them out, and their reasons for their decisions.

Did the Georgia Board of Prisons and Paroles carry out its obligation to (according to its mission statement) enhance public safety by making informed parole decisions when it refused to consider multiple recantations by witnesses who say they were manipulated by the police into false accusations? Doesn't the refusal to acknowledge Troy Davis's likely innocence actually decrease public safety because of the possibility the real killer is being allowed to walk free? Did the GBPP make this decision as a result of compelling ethical issues, or political expedience?

Did the United States Supreme Court carry out its obligation to uphold the laws of this land when it refused to grant a hearing for Davis, despite compelling new evidence that has not been heard in court, and the likelihood that their refusal would result in the death of a man who may very well be innocent? Did SCOTUS make this decision as a result of compelling ethical issues, or political expedience?

One might argue that by agreeing to oversee the execution of Troy Davis you would be following the examples set by the GBPP and SCOTUS. But is political expedience the correct basis for a moral decision? Of course not. So instead, I ask you to consider the shirking of duties by the GBPP and SCOTUS as releasing you from any sense of duty you might have to do what is expected of you by your employers, and instead follow the codes of ethics of the professional organizations to which you belong, and your own conscience. Refuse to participate in the execution of Troy Davis.

Thank you for your consideration,

"Emlev"