Final answer:
Generally, inmates scheduled for execution would be provided medical care in the event of a heart attack, including use of an automated external defibrillator (AED), due to medical ethical obligations to preserve life. Legal processes would then determine the next steps regarding the execution.
Step-by-step explanation:
If a person is about to be executed by electric chair and experiences a heart attack, the question of whether they would be saved can be complex and may vary by jurisdiction. However, it is generally the responsibility of the prison staff to provide urgent medical care to any inmate in distress, including those scheduled for execution. This includes administering lifesaving procedures such as the use of an automated external defibrillator (AED) to correct abnormal heart rhythms like ventricular fibrillation brought on by a heart attack, which is an immediate medical emergency. The aim is to stabilize the person's condition regardless of their pending execution. Medical ethics typically dictate that health care professionals provide care to preserve life. Once stabilized, legal processes will decide subsequent actions regarding the execution.
There is an interesting ethical debate surrounding this issue, as it might seem counterintuitive to save someone only to proceed with their execution. However, the law typically mandates that all efforts be made to preserve life until the legally sanctioned moment of execution. The question touches upon complex issues relating to medical ethics, the justice system, and the treatment of inmates.