Execution by lethal injection

[Ripley]

In the spirit of enquiry.

 

As I understand it, the condemned prisoner is executed by a cocktail of drugs, which first tranquilise him/her and then cause a heart attack and death results after anything up to half an hour.

 

Presumably medical practitioners were responsible for devising and implementing this particular form of execution, which, unlike hanging, shooting or Old Sparky needs more than just the tools of the trade but a high degree of knowledge and expertise.

 

How does this square with their oath to preserve life and to what degree does the inventor of the method differ from, say, Dr Mengele?

[DanielS]

In the spirit of enquiry.

 

As I understand it, the condemned prisoner is executed by a cocktail of drugs, which first tranquilise him/her and then cause a heart attack and death results after anything up to half an hour.

 

Presumably medical practitioners were responsible for devising and implementing this particular form of execution, which, unlike hanging, shooting or Old Sparky needs more than just the tools of the trade but a high degree of knowledge and expertise.

 

How does this square with their oath to preserve life and to what degree does the inventor of the method differ from, say, Dr Mengele?

1112618[/snapback]

 

One of the inventors of one of the original cocktails used was in fact a colleague of Dr Mengele.

I think, according to a documentary I watched, the process is also not reliant on a doctor actually pushing a plunger on a syringe.

[st.johns]

I think it's more like a 'shot and a beer ' than a cocktail.

[Maldini]

Isn't it supposed to be one of the more painful methods?

[Mike]

its the guards that do it ripley.

was interested to hear that rather gruesomely, they couldn't get a vein in Tookies' left arm and he was getting impatient and stressed out... they put an intravenous drip into both arms then add 3 chemicals. it was a bit of a farce and went on for ages.

[Scally the Wag]

Ripple:

 

"...their oath to preserve life"

 

Know your Hippocratic Oath sonny: they promise 'not to strive officiously' to preserve life, ie not to try too hard...

 

And, most drugs used by doctors are designed by chemists (the laboratory ones, not the high street version).

 

I think your question could well be applied to the whole euthanasia/assisted suicide debate.

[cymrococh]

Does this really need to be pointed out?

 

Killing people is bad mmkay.

 

why does it matter how/via who, they do it?

Edited December 14, 2005 by Paul Caruso

[StevieC]

Isn't it supposed to be one of the more painful methods?

1112657[/snapback]

 

 

not so much painful as distressing. You feel your whole body shut off bit by bit and the brain is the last to go. In other words you're concious of everything happening to you right up until the bitter end.

[DanielS]

not so much painful as distressing.  You feel your whole body shut off bit by bit and the brain is the last to go.  In other words you're concious of everything happening to you right up until the bitter end.

1112764[/snapback]

 

Much better to be gunned down in cold blood and let it be a complete surprise. I bet Tookie's 4 victims were thankful they didn't see it coming like he had to.

 

There is no way to execute people that isn't f***ing awful. Which is why it just shouldn't be done at all. any society that does it is in the dark ages.

[muleskinner]

Is it carried out by 3 Doctors so that none of them knows who actually administered the fatal dose?

 

Sure I read that somewhere . . .

[drdooom]

not so much painful as distressing.  You feel your whole body shut off bit by bit and the brain is the last to go.  In other words you're concious of everything happening to you right up until the bitter end.

1112764[/snapback]

The first injection is supposed to make you unconcious so the above only happens if there's a screwup and the government never screws up.

[Murphman]

Much better to be gunned down in cold blood and let it be a complete surprise. I bet Tookie's 4 victims were thankful they didn't see it coming like he had to.

 

 

 

1112843[/snapback]

 

 

Lucky barstards.

Edited December 14, 2005 by Murphman

[Ripley]

Ripple:

 

"...their oath to preserve life"

 

Know your Hippocratic Oath sonny: they promise 'not to strive officiously' to preserve life, ie not to try too hard...

 

And, most drugs used by doctors are designed by chemists (the laboratory ones, not the high street version).

 

I think your question could well be applied to the whole euthanasia/assisted suicide debate.

1112711[/snapback]

Generally catching up the overnight, but on the above, I presumably stand corrected on the oath and, with regard to assisted suicide, the person actually wants to die unlike the Tookies of (no longer) this world.

 

On other points, I knew that the process was now "automatic" i.e. administered by guards (I've seen Dead man Walking) but somebody or committee, presumably medically qualified, must have designed the method originally.

 

With regard to anonymity, Eichmann had 3 hangmen, only one of whom pulled the genuine lever and Gary Gilmore, who may have been responsible for reviving capital punishment in the US by demanding to be executed was put to death by firing squad, one of whom did not have a live round.

[DanielS]

Generally catching up the overnight, but on the above, I presumably stand corrected on the oath and, with regard to assisted suicide, the person actually wants to die unlike the Tookies of (no longer) this world.

 

On other points, I knew that the process was now "automatic" i.e. administered by guards (I've seen Dead man Walking) but somebody or committee, presumably medically qualified, must have designed the method originally.

 

With regard to anonymity, Eichmann had 3 hangmen, only one of whom pulled the genuine lever and Gary Gilmore, who may have been responsible for reviving capital punishment in the US by demanding to be executed was put to death by firing squad, one of whom did not have a live round.

1112874[/snapback]

 

You might be interested in this.

 

And this.

Edited December 14, 2005 by DanielS

[Spion kop]

a headshot would be cheaper and instant.

[Stevie H]

a headshot would be cheaper and instant.

1112903[/snapback]

 

constructive.

[Spion kop]

constructive.

1112905[/snapback]

 

in this pointless debacle, i thought so.

[DanielS]

a headshot would be cheaper and instant.

1112903[/snapback]

 

Not been in many emergency rooms have you? Head shots can be incredibly messy and nowhere near instant on rare occassions.

Posts merged:

More on mad Freddie the gas man.

[Stevie H]

in this pointless debacle, i  thought so.

1112907[/snapback]

 

what 'debacle'? you sure you didn't mean 'debate'?

 

re: ripley's initial question, i've always had trouble squaring the lethal injection with the doctor's ethical code. but then there's a bigger question involving a supposedly christian president of the USA sanctioning murder by the state. that's compassion for you.

[Scally the Wag]

Ripley:

 

"with regard to assisted suicide, the person actually wants to die"

 

Yes and, perhaps, no: the instruction to help someone die might have been given long before the present circumstances - a situation that was raised when I was young by a friend who asked me to help him die if he was unable to do it himself or communicate in any way as a result of illness or accident (he was a nurse and had had plenty of experience with terminal patients).

 

With euthanasia though, the question of consent is much more likely to arise.

 

Passive acts, such as not continuing treatment or not revivng a patient are very much a part of the daily routine for a young doctor on ward duty...

 

I have one particular friend (old student) who is now at the grand old age of 25 going on 26 and has, for the past three years, regularly signed the forms with 'do not revive' before ending a shift. He talks about it quite casually. For him it is perhaps a defence: for me, it still shocks.

 

Not trying to be clever about medicine here, just sharing thoughts.

[Gilps]

there's a bigger question involving a supposedly christian president of the USA sanctioning murder by the state.  that's compassion for you.

1112924[/snapback]

 

Eye for an eye, Stevie.

 

Granted he needs to gloss over those parts of the Bible that wouldn't back up his stance. But selectively picking out parts of the Bible to back up a contemptable position is what these fundamentalists do.

[matty]

According to a website on Euthanasia, this is the original text of the Hippocratic Oath.

 

I SWEAR by Apollo the physician and AEsculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation -- to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others. I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgement, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. I will not cut persons labouring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further, from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves. Whatever, in connection with my professional service, or not in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret. While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times. But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot.

[Ripley]

You might be interested in this.

 

And this.

1112898[/snapback]

I've seen the Errol Morris film. Leuchter = fruitcake

 

 

Posts merged:

Eye for an eye, Stevie.

 

Granted he needs to gloss over those parts of the Bible that wouldn't back up his stance. But selectively picking out parts of the Bible to back up a contemptable position is what these fundamentalists do.

1112942[/snapback]

It's not just them though is it? Didn't Clinton refuse clemency while Governor of Arkansas and already a presidential candidate. It's hard to believe that political expediency didn't override personal conviction there.

 

Posts merged:

in this pointless debacle, i  thought so.

1112907[/snapback]

Isn't participating in something pointless a bit, well, pointless?

[Des]

It's not just them though is it? Didn't Clinton refuse clemency while Governor of Arkansas and already a presidential candidate.

1113011[/snapback]

 

Yes. He refused it to a bloke with a mental age of about six.

[Ripley]

Ripley:

 

"with regard to assisted suicide, the person actually wants to die"

 

Yes and, perhaps, no: the instruction to help someone die might have been given long before the present circumstances - a situation that was raised when I was young by a friend who asked me to help him die if he was unable to do it himself or communicate in any way as a result of illness or accident (he was a nurse and had had plenty of experience with terminal patients).

 

With euthanasia though, the question of consent is much more likely to arise.

 

Passive acts, such as not continuing treatment or not revivng a patient are very much a part of the daily routine for a young doctor on ward duty...

 

I have one particular friend (old student) who is now at the grand old age of 25 going on 26 and has, for the past three years, regularly signed the forms with 'do not revive' before ending a shift. He talks about it quite casually. For him it is perhaps a defence: for me, it still shocks.

 

Not trying to be clever about medicine here, just sharing thoughts.

1112939[/snapback]

Likewise not coming from any dogmatic angle, just trying to square a circle, so to speak.

 

Is not the overriding medical rule, "First, do no harm."?