NC Supreme Court Rules Doctors Can Participate in Executions

In a 4-3 decision, the court turned back one of the legal challenges that have created a two year death penalty moratorium in North Carolina. The decision split the court's members along gender lines.

The Medical Board was sued by the NC Department of Corrections after prison officials couldn't find doctors who were willing to monitor executions, due to fears of disciplinary action from the board.

North Carolina executes criminals by lethal injections at the state death chamber in Raleigh.

State law calls for doctors to be present at executions, and although the medical board has not fought that, the board has previously argued that doctors shouldn't monitor a prisoner's vital signs as called for in state execution rules. Doctors are not necessarily required to administer the lethal injections.

The medical board licenses doctors in the state and has the power to discipline them. It has taken a stance that the current levels of participation in capital punishment violates a doctor's code of ethics which require preserving life.

The decision does not totally clear the way for executions to resume in the state, as several other legal challenges must be addressed.

The court ruled that Wake County Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens was correct in his 2007 ruling that said the Medical Board doesn't have the authority to stop doctors from participating in executions. The board had appealed Judge Stephens' decision.

In its decision, the court said the board may not discipline or threaten to discipline against the doctors it licenses just for their participation in executions.

"We hold that (state law), by its plain language, envisions physician participation in executions in some professional capacity," Justice Edward Thomas Brady wrote in the majority decision. "(The board's) position statement exceeds its authority. The statement directly contravenes the specific requirement of physician presence."

The case divided the court's male and female members as the three female justices dissented, arguing that the state legislature should make the decision about what powers the Medical Board had to discipline doctors.

"The position statement is a valid exercise of (the board's) statutory authority. Any change in that authority - which is the practical effect of the majority opinion - is a matter for the General Assembly which granted it, not for the courts," Justice Robin Hudson wrote.

The legislature is controlled by Democratic majorities, and House Speaker Joe Hackney and Senate leader Marc Basnight indicated they would review the decision.