The key argument in the passage is that drugs are created to cure people and thus should not be used in the process of preparing criminals for the death penalty. Charles Laverne Singleton was to be given medicine to make him mentally sound so that the government could carry out his execution. It is conventional knowledge that doctors administer drugs to individuals for curative or protective purposes. They are not supposed to dispense medicines in order to prepare people for their death. It beats logic The fact that doctors are asked to heal Singleton from insanity so that the government could execute him when he is in the sound state of mind is at variance with logic. The government could have just executed Singleton instead of bringing in the issue of medicine to make him sane and prepare him for the capital punishment. In fact, this is an ethical issue which calls forth immense controversy in the practice of medicine as provided by the law.
My position in relation to this case is that Singleton, a felony capital murderer, should have been executed the way he is. The case had already been conducted and he had been proven guilty of felony capital murders in the state of Arkansas. The law should have proceeded with his straight execution instead of involving doctors and restoring the criminal’s sanity. The involvement of doctors and the administration of antipsychotic drugs gives rise to an ethical issue in the field of medicine. It forces doctors to go against their oath which states that they should do everything to save the life of the patient and not engage in any act that may put the life of the patient at risk. It would have made more sense in case Singleton had been sentenced to direct execution because he had been found guilty. He could have been subjected to execution immediately by the decision of the judges. This would have been a more appropriate decision.
My key reason for this position is that everyone should be subjected to the law equally. The case against Singleton was completed and he was found guilty of felonious capital murders. This means that he should have faced execution like other criminals subjected to it. The fact that he became insane while in prison does not free him from execution because he committed the murders in the sound state of mind. The only thing I object to is the involvement of doctors to treat him in order to prepare him for the death penalty. Singleton should have been subjected to execution immediately instead of being given antipsychotic drugs, which would restore his sanity before the execution is completed.
The key objection to my argument might be the statement that Singleton was insane, and it would have been unfair to execute him while in this state. Those against my position would be of the opinion that it is unjust to subject Singleton to this type of punishment when he is not in his correct state of mind. This is because he is not even aware of the charges brought against him by the judges in the court. Thus, the law should be followed accordingly and allow doctors to assist in returning him to his correct state of mind before the execution is carried out. I would respond to this argument with the assertion that Singleton still is a criminal guilty of felonious capital murders. When he committed these murders, he was absolutely sane, which was a proven fact. Therefore, it would have been more appropriate to execute him despite the fact that he was insane instead of bringing about ethical issues related to medicine and involving doctors in the case.