- Joined
- Feb 10, 2012
- Messages
- 2,987
- Reaction score
- 3,528
Well, we wouldn't want to EMBARRASS him, would we? I mean, that would be just inhumane!
When will these guys learn to do a lethal injection?
- Thread starter ZzzPlz
- Start date
Well, we wouldn't want to EMBARRASS him, would we? I mean, that would be just inhumane!
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2010
- Messages
- 597
- Reaction score
- 234
What I don't get is that it is so often the people who say "there is too much government" who are in favour of the death penalty. How much more intrusive and overbearing can we allow a government to be than allowing it to deliberately kill its own citizens?
The death penalty was a historical solution developed for poor societies which couldn't afford to provide for unproductive adults and didn't have the technology (i.e. sewage systems) to keep societally unsafe people locked up in limited locations. Neither of those conditions now applies in the USA, but the death penalty hangs on.
As to methods, carbon monoxide seems a pretty painless and untechnical solution which already works (deliberately or accidentally) for a lot of people each year.
The death penalty was a historical solution developed for poor societies which couldn't afford to provide for unproductive adults and didn't have the technology (i.e. sewage systems) to keep societally unsafe people locked up in limited locations. Neither of those conditions now applies in the USA, but the death penalty hangs on.
As to methods, carbon monoxide seems a pretty painless and untechnical solution which already works (deliberately or accidentally) for a lot of people each year.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2012
- Messages
- 191
- Reaction score
- 75
Massive dose of IM Ketamine, then a massive dose of IM Sux. Maybe some IM rocuronium in addition? Maybe you can avoid the whole difficult IV thing.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 13,771
- Reaction score
- 24,236
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 16,822
- Reaction score
- 26,199
So they "botched" another one in Arizona:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...rizona-supreme-court-stays-planned-execution/
He "gasped and snorted" for almost 2 hours after they gave him midazolam and hydromorphone. Someone counted 600 gasps. No ****, eh?
Were they expecting something other than agonal respirations after an opiate OD?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...rizona-supreme-court-stays-planned-execution/
He "gasped and snorted" for almost 2 hours after they gave him midazolam and hydromorphone. Someone counted 600 gasps. No ****, eh?
Were they expecting something other than agonal respirations after an opiate OD?
- Joined
- May 1, 2006
- Messages
- 918
- Reaction score
- 22
What I don't care for is the medicalization of execution. If the citizens of a state have decided that their state can perform executions as a form of justice, then why make it into a medical procedure? If someone's crime was so heinous they merit death, why are we as a society so concerned that the last 5 minutes of their life is painless? A gun, a guillotine (or its modern equivalent), or any other number of quick methods would presumably avoid the "cruel and unusual" injunction.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 1,253
- Reaction score
- 44
What I don't get is why they don't still use Panc and KCl? Sedation accomplished now end it.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 16,822
- Reaction score
- 26,199
Because they don't know what they're doing. $10 says the people behind this are laypeople who looked up hydromorphone and midazolam on Wikipedia, shrugged, and said "sounds good!"
Qualified people aren't allowed to participate or advise, on pain of sanction from state licensing boards. This is by design. The anti death penalty people want it to be an obscene spectacle of incompetence because each circus act helps them convince an otherwise uninterested public that the death penalty is cruel. The irony is that it wasn't a spectacle back in the days when Pentothal was available, but Pentothal isn't available any more because of the anti death penalty activists. You kind of have to admire the gall of their indignation: take away the tried & true method, then complain that the replacement method is messy?
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 1,253
- Reaction score
- 44
Ok. If they are searching the web again, I hope they hit this forum.
1- 10 mg iv Midazolam
2- if you wish 10 mg iv Dilaudid
3- 0.1 mg/kg iv Pancuronium
4- 100 mEq iv KCl
1- 10 mg iv Midazolam
2- if you wish 10 mg iv Dilaudid
3- 0.1 mg/kg iv Pancuronium
4- 100 mEq iv KCl
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2012
- Messages
- 2,987
- Reaction score
- 3,528
Mission Accomplished.
Right?
Remember these are government workers. Using terms like "mg/kg" and "mEq" are likely to confuse them.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 1,253
- Reaction score
- 44
Hopefully they can " google" what it means.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 7,244
- Reaction score
- 3,060
I am not sure that Benzos and Opiates are appropriate choices since most people who manage to make it to death row are usually drug abusers/addicts and they probably have extremely high tolerance to these drugs so the effects would be unpredictable.
I say if you can't get Propofol or Thipental then maybe Ketamine ---> Pancuronium ---> KCL ---> end of the story.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,224
- Reaction score
- 648
You can't get pancuronium. 100 mg of rocuronium will do the trick. And faster.
D
deleted126335
Muscle relaxants are not in fashion for execution because of the potential for awareness and suffering. KCL burns, it also has the same concerns regarding awareness.
All the cocktails that omit relaxant will probably have some hypoventilation/obstruction or chest wall rigidity prior to death. These will inevitably be spun as "labored breathing" or "gasping" and suffering.
Where is the anesthesiologist doing the interview to say that "these are drugs that are routinely given every day to allay pain and anxiety and inadvertently probably a hundered patients a year or more are bumped off throughout hospitals with them across the country". Where is the anesthesiologist interview who will say "if you have ever had a gall bladder or hernia surgery , et al., you have experienced what an execution feels like minus the psychological implications.
At least it would be factually accurate.
All the cocktails that omit relaxant will probably have some hypoventilation/obstruction or chest wall rigidity prior to death. These will inevitably be spun as "labored breathing" or "gasping" and suffering.
Where is the anesthesiologist doing the interview to say that "these are drugs that are routinely given every day to allay pain and anxiety and inadvertently probably a hundered patients a year or more are bumped off throughout hospitals with them across the country". Where is the anesthesiologist interview who will say "if you have ever had a gall bladder or hernia surgery , et al., you have experienced what an execution feels like minus the psychological implications.
At least it would be factually accurate.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 1,253
- Reaction score
- 44
Give enough of whatever to make the pt unaware ( propofol, versed, massive opiate....) then give NM blocker and KCl. No obstructive breathing and certain fast death. I don't get it. Nobody is going to comment publicly bc of medical boards.
- Joined
- May 5, 2010
- Messages
- 439
- Reaction score
- 36
"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons."
--Fyodor Dostoevsky, The House of the Dead (1862)
More and more, I becoming not a capital punishment type person. Too much doubt in the current system, too much politics interfering with things.
However, if it has to be done, get it right; keep the use of pharmaceuticals to a minimum.
If there has to be capital punishment, I am up for the CO/CO2 method, with some oral midazolam/some sort of cheap benzo just for anxiolysis.
I don't want our supply of anesthetics compromised because of it. We have already seen the EU balk at sodium pentothal, and nearly stopped our supply of propofol in the last year or so when the state governments started sniffing around it as an option.
Our sensibilities have become refined from when the Constitution was written. "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" was more to address, I suspect, some of the UK's techniques (hung drawn, and quartered for example.) As those sensibilities become more refined, capital punishment is going to have to adjust or go by the wayside.
--Fyodor Dostoevsky, The House of the Dead (1862)
More and more, I becoming not a capital punishment type person. Too much doubt in the current system, too much politics interfering with things.
However, if it has to be done, get it right; keep the use of pharmaceuticals to a minimum.
If there has to be capital punishment, I am up for the CO/CO2 method, with some oral midazolam/some sort of cheap benzo just for anxiolysis.
I don't want our supply of anesthetics compromised because of it. We have already seen the EU balk at sodium pentothal, and nearly stopped our supply of propofol in the last year or so when the state governments started sniffing around it as an option.
Our sensibilities have become refined from when the Constitution was written. "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" was more to address, I suspect, some of the UK's techniques (hung drawn, and quartered for example.) As those sensibilities become more refined, capital punishment is going to have to adjust or go by the wayside.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2004
- Messages
- 672
- Reaction score
- 274
Agree. why don't they just stick a big venous / arterial line and let 'em exsanguinate. no wastage of drugs and maybe the blood could be used for transfusions.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 6,232
- Reaction score
- 7,580
That's nice and pithy, but prison is a threat. Other societies seem to, somehow, survive without executions.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2003
- Messages
- 1,721
- Reaction score
- 1,149
I too am appaled at the procedural aspect of lethal injections and the providers whom place the IV's and adminster the medications. I believe the system is too imperfect to have the death penalty. Not because the inmates dont deserve to die. More from the standpoint that if you put to death one inmate who is innocent is excuse enough to not have a penalty. The system is definetly scewed at unfair prosecution of minorities. Why is it that the racial demographics of prisons is not the same as whats in society? Because the rules and laws set up unfairly target minorities.
D
deleted171991
I don't understand why we should care for the comfort of somebody who has done such a heinous crime it deserved the death penalty. If they did it to my loved ones, I would want them sliced slowly with a microtome, while being kept alive even artificially. I would want to see them wringing in pain for days, beg for their death. It wouldn't be cruel and unusual punishment; it would be proportional with their crime, or even nicer.
I would want being exposed to their worst fears, whatever makes them suffer the most, not the least. I would want them locked contorted in a small box, for years. That's punishment.
Actually, we could just burn them alive, enough to get lethal burns, then let them wait for their death in agonizing pain. It's cheaper. Guillotine or fire squad or other methods of sudden death should be the exception, not the norm. I would even consider letting the families involved choose a method of execution, as long as it's similar and proportional to what the convict did to their loved ones.
On the other hand, I would reserve the death penalty only to 100% proven cases, and would not allow it to be decided by a jury but by a sentencing panel of specialized judges, with excellent knowledge of various forensic methods and their limits, who would have to decide unanimously.
As a society we should make up our minds: either we abolish the death penalty or, if that's not cruel or unusual punishment, then we play "an eye for an eye". Nothing cruel or unusual in that. It actually might make some idiots consider twice what they do to another human being. Career criminals are not afraid of prison, maybe even sudden death, but they are still afraid of pain and torture.
I would want being exposed to their worst fears, whatever makes them suffer the most, not the least. I would want them locked contorted in a small box, for years. That's punishment.
Actually, we could just burn them alive, enough to get lethal burns, then let them wait for their death in agonizing pain. It's cheaper. Guillotine or fire squad or other methods of sudden death should be the exception, not the norm. I would even consider letting the families involved choose a method of execution, as long as it's similar and proportional to what the convict did to their loved ones.
On the other hand, I would reserve the death penalty only to 100% proven cases, and would not allow it to be decided by a jury but by a sentencing panel of specialized judges, with excellent knowledge of various forensic methods and their limits, who would have to decide unanimously.
As a society we should make up our minds: either we abolish the death penalty or, if that's not cruel or unusual punishment, then we play "an eye for an eye". Nothing cruel or unusual in that. It actually might make some idiots consider twice what they do to another human being. Career criminals are not afraid of prison, maybe even sudden death, but they are still afraid of pain and torture.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2003
- Messages
- 1,721
- Reaction score
- 1,149
Maybe we could ask one of the patients whom they used Pancuronium on if he was aware during the execution? FFP is any crime 100% proven? Their is always doubt and extenuiating circumstances. I say put the guy away for multiple life terms thats slow and agonizing. And what about rehabilitation? Not to a point where they can function in society but to a point where they understand their crimes? What about those people that act out the death penalty on innocent people? They themselves have just killed an innocent man albeit they were executing orders they still committed murder. Hasn't our society moved beyond the death penalty. Its so barbaric and archaic we are people of science now.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 16,822
- Reaction score
- 26,199
Because a civilized justice system is about (first) deterrence, (second) removing a threat from society at large, (third) punishment, (ETA fourth) rehabilitation, but not revenge.
So here's problem #1 with your post: a 100% proven case? What we've got now are convictions at trial, and multiple appeals spanning many years and at tremendous expense (often over a decade). Only then does the accused get an appointment for execution. And still (STILL!) we wind up executing innocent people. It's probably 1 in 20. If it was possible to be 100% sure, don't you think our civilization would've unlocked that achievement by now?
How about corrupt police or prosecutors? Framed victims? Biased juries?
How ... authoritarian. Yes, yes, let's put MORE life-and-death power in the hands of government officials. Better yet, politically appointed officials.
Regardless, here's problem #2 with your plan: we have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to be judged by a jury of our peers.
I'm not the slightest bit interested in yielding any piece of any right protected by any of the Amendments, whether 1st, 2nd, or 6th, particularly if the stated purpose is to sate someone's bloodlust.
This statement demonstrates a remarkable lack of insight into why violent criminals and sociopaths do what they do. The career criminals you speak of aren't afraid of A N Y T H I N G that might happen later than tomorrow afternoon ...
You don't get to the point in your life where you'll murder a guy for the paper in his pocket, or invade a home to harm someone, or rape/torture/kill someone, without developing a complete, callous, cold disregard for other people ... and a profound sociopathic narcissism. They're not like you. They people don't fear prison or capital punishment because they aren't planning on getting caught. Getting caught is what other people do.
There's no evidence that any deterrence value to capital punishment exceeds the deterrence value of life in prison.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 1,374
- Reaction score
- 574
G@wdd@mn 100% exactly right on the money.
I was pro-cap punishment until just the last year or two. Now I can't believe how wrong I was.
And the fact that some people are arguing "it's ok if a few innocents die from it"?!
It's EXACTLY how I imagine the people would've thought/behaved in 'idiocracy'.
Arch Guillotti
Senior Member
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
20+ Year Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2001
- Messages
- 9,914
- Reaction score
- 7,344
What pgg said.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 6,232
- Reaction score
- 7,580
One of the gotchas to our system is that the cases where we're MOST sure about the guilt of the accused are the ones where we're LEAST likely to go for the death penalty.
If there's genuine smoking-gun evidence like clear video recordings, those cases rarely go to trial because the defendant knows he'll lose. So they plead it out.
The cases that actually go to trial and get convicted are the ones where there's some small room for doubt.
If there's genuine smoking-gun evidence like clear video recordings, those cases rarely go to trial because the defendant knows he'll lose. So they plead it out.
The cases that actually go to trial and get convicted are the ones where there's some small room for doubt.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 709
- Reaction score
- 358
What if you plead guilty but still get the death penalty? I mean, if you did the crime, you're guilty no matter what, and lying about the crime seems so insignificant in comparison whatever combination of rape and murder landed you in a courtroom in the first place. The whole plea thing seems like nonsense.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 6,232
- Reaction score
- 7,580
Does that ever happen? Why would you accept a plea deal that includes the death penalty?
The entire point of a plea deal is that the prosecution offers the defendant something to convince him to avoid going to trial.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 709
- Reaction score
- 358
I think the plea has a purpose, but is it really necessary to make a deal for every crime?
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 6,232
- Reaction score
- 7,580
No, but trials - especially capital trials - are extremely time-consuming and expensive. A plea completely avoids that. I think that prosecutors are in general quite happy to accept a sentence like life imprisonment for a definite conviction and being able to avoid trial and mandatory appeals.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 709
- Reaction score
- 358
Good point
- Joined
- May 5, 2010
- Messages
- 439
- Reaction score
- 36
I have to quote myself:
One other thing to consider: As someone mentioned earlier, the cost of getting to the point of execution with trial, re-trial, retrial again is expensive. It's cheaper to lock them up for the most part.
pgg's on point with this. If we erode our rights to get the guilty behind bars, where does the erosion end?
One other thing to consider: As someone mentioned earlier, the cost of getting to the point of execution with trial, re-trial, retrial again is expensive. It's cheaper to lock them up for the most part.
Last edited:
D
deleted171991
pgg, you read way too much into my post.
I was not advocating revenge. I was advocating punishment proportional to the crime committed. Sometimes the death penalty is just not enough punishment for the magnitude of the crime.
I am 100% sure that we are still convicting innocent people to death. This is why I was pleading for more checks and balances, as in an extra sentencing people made up of specialized judges, where everything would be judged based on facts, not emotions. Not "beyond any reasonable doubt", but "beyond any doubt". We would have much fewer executions, but also much fewer doubts and errors. And those guys would deserve their painful deaths.
I lean mostly libertarian, I grew up in a corrupt country, so you are preaching to the choir. What I see at this point is exactly the latter. "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit"? What highly intelligent person would ever let himself be persuaded with crap like that? As long as lawyers have the right to cherry-pick juries (both prosecutors and defense attorneys), it's mostly just who plays better theater. These decisions should have no emotional component, e.g. the jury should be in a separate conference room and not even see or meet the defendant or the various witnesses.
I am not authoritarian just because I am not a bleeding heart-liberal. I was advocating an extra level of checks and balances.
I agree with that, as long as it is a jury of our peers. Randomly-selected peers, not cherry-picked by lawyers. That was added later and has nothing to do with the Constitution. Also, in civil cases, if I am judged for malpractice, for example, my peers are my anesthesiologist colleagues, not Joe Redneck.
I am against giving up constitutional rights, too. I just have a different interpretation for some of them.
Then you should agree with me that keeping them in a box for $50,000/year does not fix anything.
Then why are we even talking about "botched" executions? The only botched executions are those where the convict survived.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 6,232
- Reaction score
- 7,580
How would you do this? Change the standard of proof for a conviction when death is a possible sentence? Have a second hearing after the original with the higher standard of proof? Have jurors given three options: guilty beyond any doubt, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but not any doubt, or not guilty?
D
deleted171991
I don't know, I am not an expert. I just feel that whatever we are doing now is not really working. We prosecute the hell out of minor offenses and stigmatize people for life, hence committing them to a lifetime of crime. We are letting emotions run wild in the courtrooms. We cherry-pick juries, most of them full of people with less than a college education. We rely a lot on witnesses, while bearing false witness is not punished severely. We rely a lot on circumstantial evidence, while that should never be admitted in court. The last things we rely on are facts; police and prosecutors taint the judicial process unpunished so they can obtain convictions, because we as a society measure their performance by their relative and absolute number of convictions. We block juries from simple things like looking up details on the laws they are supposed to apply. We let some judges use them as rubberstamps, by not informing them properly about their rights as a juror (such as jury nullification). And we are wasting a ton of money on all these things.
The list is long, and my life is short. I just needed to vent. Back to my regularly scheduled program...
The list is long, and my life is short. I just needed to vent. Back to my regularly scheduled program...
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 306
- Reaction score
- 279
Took the dog to the vet yesterday and had a pretty long chat about this issue. Obviously in his field, they deal with euthanasia on a regular basis. IM premed, IV access, massive dose of propofol or pentobarb, +/- KCl chaser.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2014
- Messages
- 147
- Reaction score
- 49
I had a feeling this thread would be derailed into a debate about the morality of the death penalty. Welcome to the internetz 😛
Short answer: Never. Anesthesiologists are forbidden by the ABA from participating in executions. When you have an amateur trying to push drugs that only a professional is trained to push, expect more botched executions.
Short answer: Never. Anesthesiologists are forbidden by the ABA from participating in executions. When you have an amateur trying to push drugs that only a professional is trained to push, expect more botched executions.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 7,244
- Reaction score
- 3,060
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 13,771
- Reaction score
- 24,236
Most everybody on this forum can come up with dozens of ways to perform a "humane" execution. One of the problems is that anybody who is intelligent enough and motivated enough to obtain this knowledge and skillset is not working in the corrections system. But maybe some pro-execution, underemployed or unemployed anesthesiologist would give up the practice of medicine and offer up services as an itinerant professional executioner. Apparently there is a need.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2012
- Messages
- 191
- Reaction score
- 75
I was literally about to write the same thing. Why can't somebody who has retired from anesthesia take care of it? We can put in central lines for difficult IV access. Put them to sleep, put a BIS on to show the public that the patient is sedated/anesthetized. Then hit em with the panc/roc and potassium.
D
deleted126335
From Anesthesiology News:
Anesthesiologist Participation in Executions: Always Wrong?
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the constitutionality of execution by lethal injection. In particular, the court will consider claims by two Kentucky inmates that the drugs used during executions constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Despite their special training, physicians have traditionally shied away from any involvement with capital punishment or lethal injection, preferring to see themselves as healers and comforters rather than as executioners. Many codes of medical ethics explicitly forbid physician involvement in capital punishment. A frequently stated explanation for this view is that physicians are entrusted to work for the benefit of their patients, and that this trust is violated when medical expertise is used to facilitate judicial executions.
For instance, the American Medical Association (AMA) Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs states:
An individual’s opinion on capital punishment is the personal moral decision of the individual. A physician, as a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, should not be a participant in a legally authorized execution.
This is not to imply that physicians do not participate anyway. According to a 2007 article in Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology (2007;20:147-151), 17 states with the death penalty require physician involvement, usually to declare death, although doctors have also “rendered inmates competent, provided intravenous access, monitored vital signs, (and) administered lethal injections.” In one case reported in The New York Times, a prison doctor even inserted a central line when a nurse was unable to establish peripheral venous access.
Several counterarguments have been advanced against the AMA position. First, physicians are sometimes involved in the termination of life in other ways during the course of their duties, as in the case of gynecologists who perform therapeutic abortions or intensive care physicians who withdraw life support from patients whose prognosis is hopeless. Related to this argument is the notion held by some that it should be acceptable for physicians to participate in euthanasia.
A second counterargument sometimes raised is that physicians should not label as unethical government policies that have been democratically developed through legitimate legislative channels.
Not all physicians view participation in judicial executions with abhorrence. In fact, some take a very practical perspective, arguing that the alternative of having prison employees with little experience attempt to obtain venous access is less humane than having an experienced physician do so. In all likelihood, prisoners on death row would agree.
The French physician Joseph-Ignace Guillotin was among the first physicians to advocate the use of technology to achieve more “humane” executions. Ironically, Dr. Guillotin was personally opposed to the death penalty and saw his proposal as a step toward the abolition of capital punishment. While a member of the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Guillotin proposed that the French develop a uniform method of execution that would replace the less humane methods then in use, such as hanging, burning, mutilation and drowning.
Similar views can be found today. For instance, Jack F. Hildebrand, writing in the “Rapid Responses” section of the British Medical Journal, expressed his opinion this way:
“Let me make it clear: I am opposed to the death penalty. But the fact remains that the death penalty does still exist in this country. I understand that certain physicians want nothing to do with the executions that result from this policy.
But, on the other hand, one of the duties, and desires, of a physician is to provide comfort and relieve pain and suffering. While capital punishment is legal, capital torture is not. I feel that we have a duty, once someone has been ordered executed, to ensure that the execution takes place in as ‘humane’ a fashion as possible. The records are ripe with stories of botched executions. Once we have made the ignominious decision to end a convict’s life, we have a huge responsibility to bring this event about in as ‘efficient’ a manner as possible, and that is where the role of the physician comes in.
Enthusiasm for that role is not required, but I just do not see how physicians can walk away from what is, albeit unfortunately, a dirty job that somebody has to do.”
Evidence of Slipshod Performance
Execution by lethal injection is usually accomplished by administering three drugs: thiopental, pancuronium and potassium chloride. Thiopental is given to ensure unconsciousness. Pancuronium paralyzes all skeletal muscle, with the result that breathing ceases. Potassium chloride stops the heart.
There is evidence, however, that execution by lethal injection is often carried out haphazardly. For example, Koniaris et al. (Lancet 2005;365:1412-1414) found that in Texas and Virginia, executioners administered drugs remotely without monitoring for unconsciousness. In addition, neither data collection nor peer review—activities ordinarily carried out when process quality is sought—was performed. Toxicology data obtained “showed that postmortem concentrations of thiopental in the blood were lower than that required for surgery in 43 of 49 executed inmates,” and that in 21 inmates, concentrations were consistent with being awake.
The American Society of Anesthesiologists has an ethics committee that considers such issues. Its involvement in this debate arose in the context of People v Michael Angelo Morales, the case in which expert testimony about flaws in the reliability of the lethal injection process in California led to a judicial ruling requiring the presence of a “licensed medical professional,” such as an anesthesiologist, to ensure that unconsciousness is achieved. The ruling prompted some individuals, like Dr. Guillotin, to consider proposing methods of execution superior to existing techniques.
A more practical and humane method, for example, might be to encapsulate the head of the condemned convict with a sealed transparent hood to which pure nitrous oxide would be delivered. Such an arrangement should lead to painless unconsciousness in a few minutes, but because no oxygen is administered, anoxia and cardiac arrest would ensue.
It is provocative to ask, “If execution using such a system might be more humane, why is there no movement in this direction?” The likelihood is that although most anesthesiologists would agree that such a technique would be expected to work, very few would want to be involved in promoting it, either because they are philosophically opposed to capital punishment (as I am) or for reasons related to professionalism and discretion.
Regardless, physicians concerned that capital punishment be carried out competently and humanely are faced with an ethical dilemma. These physicians’ desire to reduce pain and suffering in the execution process will be in direct conflict with the long-standing ethical position of the medical establishment, which takes a clear and unambiguous position against participating in the process of capital punishment.
—D. John Doyle, MD, PhD
About ten years ago I changed my mind on the death penalty. I used to be a supporter. My objections are that many who have been sentenced to death have been exonerated and that it has been unevenly applied along racial and economic lines. When I was pro death penalty, I would have had no problem assisting in the procedure, other than my concern for the personal consequences that I would have suffered should my involvement been disclosed. I would have done it for free. At the time I considered it a matter of personal conscience.
Despite my anti death penalty stance, I strongly object to the ABA and AMA and state boards of medicine for their threatened retribution against physicians who choose to participate.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,224
- Reaction score
- 648
Did you see what the "protocol" they used in Arizona was? 50mg of midazolam, 50mg of hydromorphone, and 60 "mL" of "heparin saline". Uh, x15!!
Were they trying to kill the guy or put him on cardiac bypass?
Were they trying to kill the guy or put him on cardiac bypass?
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2005
- Messages
- 2,086
- Reaction score
- 1,370
Did you see what the "protocol" they used in Arizona was? 50mg of midazolam, 50mg of hydromorphone, and 60 "mL" of "heparin saline". Uh, x15!!
Were they trying to kill the guy or put him on cardiac bypass?
Probably died of circulatory overload from all that volume...
I realize it's all political, but the number of people using the term "botched execution" bothers me. The guy died, and comfortably. So it took a little longer. Is there some arbitrary cutoff where it becomes "botched"? 45 min? 30 min? 15 min?
It's hypocritical, because the people watching would consider it more "humane" to watch them push 100 of roc, because it would be faster and no gasping. Nevermind the fact that the guy would die a horrifying, completely awake death.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,224
- Reaction score
- 648
I've got no problem with that. Especially for child rapists... and a few attendings I had in residency.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 13,771
- Reaction score
- 24,236
With versed 750 and dilaudid 750, it was as humane as an execution can be. He was not feeling pain or anything at all.
Maybe the audience was disturbed by what they saw but it's not about them.
Then there is also this.....a permanent and irreversible penalty meted out by an imperfect justice system. You can't say, "oops we are sorry" to a dead guy.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/The_Innocent_and_the_Death_Penalty.php
Maybe the audience was disturbed by what they saw but it's not about them.
Then there is also this.....a permanent and irreversible penalty meted out by an imperfect justice system. You can't say, "oops we are sorry" to a dead guy.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/The_Innocent_and_the_Death_Penalty.php
Last edited:
One can only assume the IV was infiltrated. I'm pretty sure your average elephant would be getting a bit drowsy after 750 mg midaz plus 750 mg hydromorphone IV, never mind an inmate who shouldn't have (much of) a tolerance after being imprisoned for years.
- Joined
- May 5, 2010
- Messages
- 439
- Reaction score
- 36
That is what was puzzling to me on this execution protocol. Where the heck was the paralytic? If it has to be done, the narcotic/benzo combo would be relatively humane, but I thought there was supposed to be a paralytic involved.
You would be surprised what they can get. I worked a hospital where we had prisoners in on a regular basis. Had a guy that was supposedly clean "for years" from heroin, yet he had resistance to standard narcotics when we put him to sleep. Saw tattoos of heroin paraphernalia on his arm in pre-op, which made me think he was worshipping/still taking it. Convinced the surgeon and my attending to do a pre-emergence TAP block to keep him comfortable afterwards, after almost 300mcg of fentanyl for a hernia. Woke up quick, and had no pain. Signed him out of PACU and was still pain free.
Long story short, they can get whatever they want behind bars. It's just a matter of how much they want to pay for it.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,224
- Reaction score
- 648
This was on NPR this morning. Interesting.
http://www.npr.org/2014/11/19/365151079/ohio-bill-would-shield-source-of-lethal-injection-drugs
Summarizing the story, the bill would prevent people knowing exactly what was used and who did it. So the Eurofags couldn't interfere with our concept of justice. (And I mean "Eurofags" not in a derogatory homophobic sense, of whom I have more than a few LGBT friends, but in the meddling, chain-smoking hypocrites who would tell try to tell us how to run our country by embargo.)
http://www.npr.org/2014/11/19/365151079/ohio-bill-would-shield-source-of-lethal-injection-drugs
Summarizing the story, the bill would prevent people knowing exactly what was used and who did it. So the Eurofags couldn't interfere with our concept of justice. (And I mean "Eurofags" not in a derogatory homophobic sense, of whom I have more than a few LGBT friends, but in the meddling, chain-smoking hypocrites who would tell try to tell us how to run our country by embargo.)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,224
- Reaction score
- 648
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 6,232
- Reaction score
- 7,580
Why use the word if you have to follow it with disclaimers and Urban Dictionary links just to make sure people don't think you're a homophobe? Surely you could have come up with some other word.
