India, as does the USA, the two largest democracies in the world, with their British colonial legacy, continue to retain and practice the legal administration of the death penalty. The medical professional in the Indian context is expected to supervise the death penalty and certify death after its execution, a role which may lie in contradiction to principles of medical ethics and the Hippocratic Oath.

The essay reviews the death penalty in the context of legal provisions and moral principles, both across the world and in India. It further goes on to explore the unique position of health care professionals in relation to the death penalty, as well as the conflicting requirements placed upon them. Finally, it also discusses the death penalty with regard to principles of medical ethics.

The essay, after examination of the death penalty, finds inadequate reason, post enlightenment, as a means to justice. It places the medical professional in a morally ambiguous situation, and violates the principles of medical ethics and the Hippocratic Oath. By involving medical professional in the administration of the death penalty, it also goes against the resolutions passed by the World Medical Association in 2012 and the Indian Medical Association in 2017.

An alternate recommendation can be containment with civil labour, enabling the condemned to the right to reform as well as for society to benefit from the sentence. A sufficiently long and apt sentence may be a better, and a more effective deterrent to crime.