Doctors for Death - Thinking out loud

There is a debate going on in California about whether doctors should participate in executions. It's an interesting argument, with the pro-doctor side (and with the backing of a court ruling) claiming the presence of a doctor (anesthesiologist in this case) assures that the execution is humane. In short, get the gas passer to make sure the executee is out cold before you shoot him up with the good stuff.

It seems like an odd argument, though. If you want the guy (or gal, if you live in Texas) executed, it seems strange to be so concerned about humane treatment that you want to drag in a doctor. Is it so important- or so difficult - to get the dosage right just before you administer a lethal injection?

The AMA and other organizations object on grounds that participating in executions is a violation of the oath to "first, do no harm." And I guess that's right. I started out thinking this somehow conflicts with the case for physician assisted suicide, but there are huge differences between mercifully granting the wish of a terminally ill person and the state deciding someone has to die.

I guess if you are going to execute people - and I'm against it for a whole variety of reasons - it's best to do it as humanely as possible. Not executing them at all seems like the most human thing to do.