The first perspective is the degree to which the task itself is ambiguous and thus allows individual clinicians' values to leak through. The second perspective is that prisoners' choices to opt for execution instead of appeal are murky and often irrational. The third perspective is that even rational decisions for executions instead of appeal are often not founded on informed judgments, in part because of the situational influences of living on death row. The fourth perspective is that clinicians' judgments to participate in such legal-psychological activities are not only a matter of individual morality, but also part of evolving professional ethics. 10 references. (Author abstract)