6 ms·

What's sad about that is that there are plenty of lethal drugs that are perfectly legal and normally regulated, but they aren't part of the must-cause-pain exec

by knorby 11y ago

What's sad about that is that there are plenty of lethal drugs that are perfectly legal and normally regulated, but they aren't part of the must-cause-pain execution method used. Terminally ill patients seeking medically assisted suicide take a lethal dose of a sleeping aide, which is pleasant.

scintill76 11y ago
> the must-cause-pain execution method On the contrary: "cruel and unusual punishment" is Constitutionally prohibited in the US. Execution itself hasn't been ruled out by this, but it is not allowed to cause extreme pain. The dependence on certain drugs seems to be because of "conservatively" designing the execution protocol to a) consistently cause quick death, and b) not be painful, for instance by causing unconsciousness. There is evidence that some convicts were conscious. On the other hand, I skimmed some euthanasia protocols[0], and to a layman at least, they appear similar to the ones for execution in the US, so I'm not sure you're correct about it being pleasant for the euthanasia patients. Perhaps the euthanasia one I read is outdated and they have better ones. I think we're less likely to hear about possibly-painful euthanasia experiences as we are about possibly-painful executions, though. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection#Euthanasia_protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection#Euthanasia_pr...
- knorby 11y ago
  I believe it is designed to cause pain and distress, because I've heard the designer of lethal injection say that's the point. Kinder methods were rejected because it was meant as a replacement for means like the electric chair, the gas chamber, and firing squads. It isn't meant to torture, but you aren't meant to drift softly into the night. The doc was on BBC Horizon (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7183957.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7183957.stm). The alternative suggested there is oxygen deprivation via nitrogen. Hopefully euthanasia patients will at least be monitored. They've struck me as more pleasant at least.
  - NoPiece 11y ago
    You are 100% wrong. Here is an interview with the guy you are talking about who came up with the lethal injection protocol 40 years ago. The specific intent was to be humane, and all it is an overdose of the standard anesthesia of the time. http://time.com/101143/lethal-injection-creator-jay-chapman-botched-executions/ http://time.com/101143/lethal-injection-creator-jay-chapman-...
    - knorby 11y ago
      You are correct. I deeply mixed up people. I was thinking of this interview with Robert Blecker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YgWXKAwNY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YgWXKAwNY. That it is failing and states haven't adjusted to something that might cause euphoria is in my view a bias to pain.
anigbrowl 11y ago
the must-cause-pain execution method This is absolutely not true.
jakejake 11y ago
This is unfortunately not true. If you do some research into it, you'll discover that it's not easy for terminally ill patients to end their life. Contrary to what most people think, sleeping pills are not reliable, nor are many legal drugs. In many cases overdoses of these drugs leaves the person in an even worse state because they can cause severe distress, the body rejects them and vomits them out, they don't act quickly enough before the person is discovered and resuscitated. They can cause brain damage or physical damage without death. Terminally ill patients often aren't in good enough shape to even climb to the top of a building and throw themselves off. Like you said, it is extremely sad. The drugs required for execution, on the other hand, are used because they appear to be the most reliable, peaceful and expedient method. You can read more about it at http://www.peacefulpillhandbook.com/ http://www.peacefulpillhandbook.com/ - there are many terminally ill people who are trying to get their hands on these drugs.
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  That site doesn't seem to have publicly available info. But wouldn't mizadolam (just to calm you - any benzo I suppose) + a good dose of opiates (say, 1g of diamorphine for a naive user) work well? So long you like opiates (aren't one of those that gets really sick), it wouldn't be anything but amazing. And if you underdose, you just nod in and out for a while and try again (assuming no rescue). If there are rescue teams coming in then I suppose that wouldn't work and you'd just wake up in Narcan hell. What are your choices then?
  - refurb 11y ago
    Apparently midazolam isn't a good choice, they tried it in combination with another drug during an execution and it took forever for the guy to die. I'd suggest nitrogen asphyixiation. From what i've read, most folks who accidentally get exposed to 100% nitrogen atmospheres, don't even see it coming. Probably not that great for the execution witnesses as i'm sure you'd thrash about beforr dying.
    - URSpider94 11y ago
      It's being discussed. Oklahoma has legalized it as an alternate execution technique, and is reportedly considering using it if they can't acquire the necessary drugs for lethal injection (earlier this month, the execution of Richard Glossip was called off at the eleventh hour because of a drug screw-up). I'm not actually sure that you would thrash around at all, since there's no suffocation reflex -- according to Wikipedia, you pretty much just lose consciousness and that's that. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation) For the record, I think we should abolish the death penalty, so I'm not supporting this option, just sharing the data.
URSpider94 11y ago
I don't support the death penalty, but your comment about a "must-cause-pain execution method" seems completely off-base based on everything I've read. If you've kept up with the news, the argument is actually that the procedure MUST NOT cause pain to the condemned, and that's actually very hard to do while still ensuring death. The prototypical "three drug protocol" starts with a deep sedative that is supposed to render the person insensate (feeling no pain), then a paralytic to stop them from convulsing (the paralytic alone would actually cause death by asphyxiation in most cases), followed by potassium chloride which induces cardiac arrest. If you wanted to kill someone painfully, you could just skip straight to the potassium chloride. It would burn like hell and they would have a massive heart attack while fully conscious. Can you provide backing for your statement?
- knorby 11y ago
  (Now that I'm off my phone...) my wording could have been better, but it is meant to be an anxiety provoking and harsh, similar to past methods, and there are some speculations on the drug. An overdose of anesthetic, sodium thiopental included. Many kinder methods would produce feelings of euphoria, and these methods are explicitly avoided. The second drug, the muscle relaxant, has been speculated to be more for the audience than the prisoner, and potassium chloride would be exceptionally painful if felt. The dosage of sodium thiopental has come under fire as being much too low, long before medication swaps and more blatant screw ups (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7269-execution-by-injection-far-from-painless/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7269-execution-by-inj...). I've read speculation that the anesthetics are really not a perfect block from the pain the body experiences, even if dosage is correct. Perhaps the method wasn't meant to cause pain, but the method makes few attempts to avoid it, particularly when considering similar alternatives. That it shouldn't cause the condemned to feel like their body is on fire for several minutes seems like a far cry from "must not cause pain."

by knorby 11y ago

scintill76 11y ago

> the must-cause-pain execution method On the contrary: "cruel and unusual punishment" is Constitutionally prohibited in the US. Execution itself hasn't been ruled out by this, but it is not allowed to cause extreme pain. The dependence on certain drugs seems to be because of "conservatively" designing the execution protocol to a) consistently cause quick death, and b) not be painful, for instance by causing unconsciousness. There is evidence that some convicts were conscious. On the other hand, I skimmed some euthanasia protocols[0], and to a layman at least, they appear similar to the ones for execution in the US, so I'm not sure you're correct about it being pleasant for the euthanasia patients. Perhaps the euthanasia one I read is outdated and they have better ones. I think we're less likely to hear about possibly-painful euthanasia experiences as we are about possibly-painful executions, though. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection#Euthanasia_protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection#Euthanasia_pr...

knorby 11y ago
I believe it is designed to cause pain and distress, because I've heard the designer of lethal injection say that's the point. Kinder methods were rejected because it was meant as a replacement for means like the electric chair, the gas chamber, and firing squads. It isn't meant to torture, but you aren't meant to drift softly into the night. The doc was on BBC Horizon (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7183957.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7183957.stm). The alternative suggested there is oxygen deprivation via nitrogen. Hopefully euthanasia patients will at least be monitored. They've struck me as more pleasant at least.
- NoPiece 11y ago
  You are 100% wrong. Here is an interview with the guy you are talking about who came up with the lethal injection protocol 40 years ago. The specific intent was to be humane, and all it is an overdose of the standard anesthesia of the time. http://time.com/101143/lethal-injection-creator-jay-chapman-botched-executions/ http://time.com/101143/lethal-injection-creator-jay-chapman-...
  - knorby 11y ago
    You are correct. I deeply mixed up people. I was thinking of this interview with Robert Blecker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YgWXKAwNY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YgWXKAwNY. That it is failing and states haven't adjusted to something that might cause euphoria is in my view a bias to pain.

anigbrowl 11y ago

the must-cause-pain execution method This is absolutely not true.

jakejake 11y ago

This is unfortunately not true. If you do some research into it, you'll discover that it's not easy for terminally ill patients to end their life. Contrary to what most people think, sleeping pills are not reliable, nor are many legal drugs. In many cases overdoses of these drugs leaves the person in an even worse state because they can cause severe distress, the body rejects them and vomits them out, they don't act quickly enough before the person is discovered and resuscitated. They can cause brain damage or physical damage without death. Terminally ill patients often aren't in good enough shape to even climb to the top of a building and throw themselves off. Like you said, it is extremely sad. The drugs required for execution, on the other hand, are used because they appear to be the most reliable, peaceful and expedient method. You can read more about it at http://www.peacefulpillhandbook.com/ http://www.peacefulpillhandbook.com/ - there are many terminally ill people who are trying to get their hands on these drugs.

MichaelGG 11y ago
That site doesn't seem to have publicly available info. But wouldn't mizadolam (just to calm you - any benzo I suppose) + a good dose of opiates (say, 1g of diamorphine for a naive user) work well? So long you like opiates (aren't one of those that gets really sick), it wouldn't be anything but amazing. And if you underdose, you just nod in and out for a while and try again (assuming no rescue). If there are rescue teams coming in then I suppose that wouldn't work and you'd just wake up in Narcan hell. What are your choices then?
- refurb 11y ago
  Apparently midazolam isn't a good choice, they tried it in combination with another drug during an execution and it took forever for the guy to die. I'd suggest nitrogen asphyixiation. From what i've read, most folks who accidentally get exposed to 100% nitrogen atmospheres, don't even see it coming. Probably not that great for the execution witnesses as i'm sure you'd thrash about beforr dying.
  - URSpider94 11y ago
    It's being discussed. Oklahoma has legalized it as an alternate execution technique, and is reportedly considering using it if they can't acquire the necessary drugs for lethal injection (earlier this month, the execution of Richard Glossip was called off at the eleventh hour because of a drug screw-up). I'm not actually sure that you would thrash around at all, since there's no suffocation reflex -- according to Wikipedia, you pretty much just lose consciousness and that's that. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation) For the record, I think we should abolish the death penalty, so I'm not supporting this option, just sharing the data.

URSpider94 11y ago

I don't support the death penalty, but your comment about a "must-cause-pain execution method" seems completely off-base based on everything I've read. If you've kept up with the news, the argument is actually that the procedure MUST NOT cause pain to the condemned, and that's actually very hard to do while still ensuring death. The prototypical "three drug protocol" starts with a deep sedative that is supposed to render the person insensate (feeling no pain), then a paralytic to stop them from convulsing (the paralytic alone would actually cause death by asphyxiation in most cases), followed by potassium chloride which induces cardiac arrest. If you wanted to kill someone painfully, you could just skip straight to the potassium chloride. It would burn like hell and they would have a massive heart attack while fully conscious. Can you provide backing for your statement?

knorby 11y ago
(Now that I'm off my phone...) my wording could have been better, but it is meant to be an anxiety provoking and harsh, similar to past methods, and there are some speculations on the drug. An overdose of anesthetic, sodium thiopental included. Many kinder methods would produce feelings of euphoria, and these methods are explicitly avoided. The second drug, the muscle relaxant, has been speculated to be more for the audience than the prisoner, and potassium chloride would be exceptionally painful if felt. The dosage of sodium thiopental has come under fire as being much too low, long before medication swaps and more blatant screw ups (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7269-execution-by-injection-far-from-painless/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7269-execution-by-inj...). I've read speculation that the anesthetics are really not a perfect block from the pain the body experiences, even if dosage is correct. Perhaps the method wasn't meant to cause pain, but the method makes few attempts to avoid it, particularly when considering similar alternatives. That it shouldn't cause the condemned to feel like their body is on fire for several minutes seems like a far cry from "must not cause pain."