In February 2003, Charles Laverne Singleton, convicted of the 1979 murder of a grocery store clerk in Arkansas, was executed. Although Singleton's life ended, the controversy surrounding his execution did not. This controversy hinged on the execution of the insane, and administration of drugs that rendered prisoners competent for execution. The issue was framed by some to make it appear that the state forced a prisoner to take medication, only to then be able to legally execute them.
The issue at hand is not the morality of the death penalty, or execution of the insane. Simply, the issue is one of the state's responsibility to provide healthcare to prisoners, and, the proper scope of responsibility of healthcare professionals. Does the state have the obligation to provide medical care to prisoners, and the power to medicate prisoners against their will? Does the scope of medical professions include making determinations about what treatments will be provided to patients, based on a patient's post-treatment circumstances?
When individuals become detainees or prisoners, they effectively become wards of the state. This is because the state limits or terminates the ability of said individuals to provide for themselves. The state has an ethical responsibility to treat the medical conditions, including mental illnesses, of its wards. Therefore, the state is ethically required to provide healthcare to prisoners. This is reflected in numerous pieces of legislation, at the State and federal level, requiring the provision of “adequate” healthcare in prisons.
The responsibilities of healthcare providers lie solely in treating patient illnesses, not in forming conclusions about what happens to a patient once illnesses have been treated. Sometimes a healthcare professional may not agree with choices their patients make that impact post-treatment health. Likewise, a healthcare professional may view post-treatment circumstances patients are placed into as inhumane. Outside of certain life-threatening situations, these health professionals can refuse to treat those cases having post-treatment outcomes they disagree with. When health professionals are limited in who they can and cannot treat, usually due to legislation or being employed by a government, they may resign or otherwise vacate their position.
One could assert that medical professionals should not treat individuals when they know such treatment could reasonably result in the individuals' death. The same argument can be applied to military medics, surgeons, and other medical personnel. By administering medical care, those within the military's healthcare system are ensuring that their patients will be healthy enough to face death in the event of armed conflict. In fact, the military's healthcare system exists solely to ensure as many military members are medically fit to go into combat as possible. The argument could be made that prisoners differ from military members because the latter chose to join the military. However, arguments about innocence and the legitimacy of prisons aside, those in prisons made choices they knew could result in their incarceration. Military members and prisoners choose their respective situations.
As to whether the state has the power to administer medications against the will of prisoners, another parallel can be drawn between prisoners and military members. In general, military members cannot decline treatments and medications to address or correct health problems. If this is the case for military members, who have broken no laws, why should it not be the case for prisoners? The argument can be made that prisoner health, especially mental health, is more important than the health of military members. This does not arise from some virtue prisoners have that military members do not, but is due solely to the nature of prisons versus the military. Prisons are full of people with ill intent, while this is not the case for the military. A handful of mentally-ill prisoners can be a much larger problem for a prison than a handful of mentally-ill military members can be for the military.
While people may have differing opinions on the death penalty and issues surrounding it, the facts are that treatment of mental illness is an issue separate from the death penalty, and that scope of healthcare professionals is solely to provide treatments for these illnesses.