Execution drugs harm breathing and heart function
Oklahoma changed its execution protocols twice this year. State officials have five options for lethal injections, including a new three-drug mixture that was used for the first time Tuesday.
Two of the drugs used carry warnings that they can suppress the respiratory system, and the third warns that cardiac trouble can occur with high but non-lethal doses and lists specific steps to take if a patient receives too much of the drug but doesn't die.
MIDAZOLAM (sedative)
Warning labels that accompany packages of midazolam say intravenous use of the drug has been associated with respiratory suppression or respiratory arrest. Monitoring is required in case there is a need to intervene with life-saving medical treatment. Overdoses can result in a slow heart rate.
VECURONIUM BROMIDE (paralytic)
The package labeling warns that means of providing artificial respiration and oxygen therapy should be available when patients are given vercuronium, which is often used to relax muscles for intubation or during surgery. Respiration "insufficiency" is listed as a possible adverse reaction.
POTASSIUM CHLORIDE (stops heart)
The labels include strong warnings that potassium chloride must be given at a slow, controlled rate when administered for the treatment of a potassium deficiency. At higher doses, the drug stops the heart. For non-lethal higher doses, medical literature says to discontinue the infusion immediately and use injections of dextrose and insulin, absorb excess potassium and engage in dialysis. Respiratory paralysis is also possible. Medical literature at the National Institutes of Health says potassium intoxication can cause cardiac arrest and that EKG abnormalities can illustrate trouble.
We go from the 8th amendment protecting people from being drawn and quartered, or being burned at the stake. To it protecting someone who moments before their death experiences some tightness in their chest?
I think it was meant to protect people who actually saw their chest turned inside out before their own eyes, WHILE ALIVE!!!
agreed.
the idea was to protect people from the inhumane and painful ways they used to use.
IF they are worried about the drugs go back to the guillotine. it was fast, painless and worked 100% of the time.
I still say nothing beats a bullet to the head. By the time the pain impulse reaches the brain it's already dead.
If we're really worried about whether someone feels pain or not, we'd have been doing it that way a long time ago. Unfortunately all this fuss is about something else.
Unscheduled executions are likely the most humane.
Having someone wake up that morning, knowing they are scheduled for execution, then being escorted to the execution is probably pretty dreadful, so even if the execution itself is painless, there is a lot of mental anguish involved in that.
But not scheduling them, and just being gassed in your sleep on any random night, is perfectly peaceful. It could happen to any one of us tomorrow and we'd die happy without any anxiety or dread.
Which part of the brain, though? And how much destruction needs to take place to induce instant unconsciousness? No one is willing to be a test subject, unfortunately...I still say nothing beats a bullet to the head. By the time the pain impulse reaches the brain it's already dead.
If we're really worried about whether someone feels pain or not, we'd have been doing it that way a long time ago. Unfortunately all this fuss is about something else.
I always thought that killers should be executed using the method they used to kill their victim.
I always thought that killers should be executed using the method they used to kill their victim.
That would seem "fair", but what would be the point? Is killing them in a particularly brutal way going to teach them anything? What good would teaching them anything do if they're dead after they learn it. The urge to mete out reciprocal punishment is instinctual for us I think. In most cases it would probably serve us well as social animals. In a way, the most direct to discourage an action is to demonstrate how bad that action is on the person who committed it, hopefully engendering some empathy in them by causing them to share the pain that they caused. That's all good and well with non-lethal punishments, but it makes no sense when the goal from the start is to kill the person. Yet the instinct persists because it has aided society in correcting deviant members for countless generations.
Once you've decided to kill someone though, you've crossed the line from corrective behavior to eliminating the deviant element entirely. In that case the urge to correct through reciprocal "eye for an eye" type punishments is misplaced. The most efficient way to serve that goal is quickly and dispassionately. It still doesn't make much sense to me that we worry about whether it hurts them or not though. Chances are the quickest and most efficient way to kill someone is also not very painful anyway.
That would seem "fair", but what would be the point?
I always thought that killers should be executed using the method they used to kill their victim.
Personally I think the killer should be strapped down and left alone in a room with the victims family. Let them do it, decide what method to use and how long it takes. And if they want to hear the perp screaming for years, more power to them, just lock up when you leave.
I think they actually do something similar to that in Iran.
So now even Iran has a better justice system than the USA?