2 hours to die after lethal injection drugs given.

[wvugurl26]

Since it has happened in Arizona and Oklahoma I would say an investigation into the combination and perhaps a better combination might be in order. However, I do believe that there will be instances where someone's body doesn't react to the drug in the typical manner.

Reports on this seem to be conflicting. Some say he was gasping for air, some say he was snoring. Supposedly the staff verified he was unconscious eight different times during the execution.

[mmhmm]

I'm not sure whether this was the result of the drugs being used (and/or the order of use) or a failure of the equipment/vein. I really hope the investigation clears up what actually went wrong and the media lets us know those results in detail. Most failures have been due to failure of a vein, or equipment failures (some caused by poor protocols, not actual failure of the equipment). Both those things can be mitigated. Why the hell aren't they?

Apparently, staff wait until the criminal is on the table to find a damned vein. What?!? Why?!? The guy's been right there to be checked the whole time. You can check to insure your vein and catheter are viable before you inject. Why isn't this done? If you can't find a peripheral vein to inject, there are alternatives. Why aren't they used? I'm not sure what's going on and really want more information. One thing I am sure of:  This does not have to happen!

[Green Eyed Lady]

Maybe they should put him in the electric chair with a tight rope around his neck, inject him with an overdose of herion, and right as they turn the juice on, shoot him.  That ought to do it.

[mmhmm]

Jul 24, 2014 10:06:05 GMT -5 achelois said:

I agree with Shooby. What they need to do is include a non-depolarizing muscle relaxant and/or iv potassium. Heck, add some iv antihypertensives or digoxin or give straight neostigmine after versed/fentanyl/propofol. 
 
You dont need pentothal. 

Ask a pharmacist. Ask an anesthesia provider. It isnt really that difficult to kill somebody with a whole lot of different drugs if they use them properly--or, maybe that should be improperly. 

I am not really big on the death penalty but this kind of thing is ridiculous. 

Absolutely! There are available drugs that can be used and they're effective if used in proper quantities and delivered correctly. This is totally bogus!

[Sam_2.0]

What were the pills that one guy took after his guilty verdict was read that stopped his heart almost immediately right there in the court room? I say we make those available to people on death row. They take the pills and go to sleep, never to wake up again. The prisoner is the one who administers their own medication and no one has to watch.

[mmhmm]

If it's the one I'm thinking of, Sam_2.0, he took cyanide and died of cardiac arrest on the way to the hospital, not in the courtroom. Cyanide causes pretty rapid death but not without suffering.

[ArchietheDragon]

Something like this would be quick and painless.

[Sam_2.0]

So heavy sedative + cyanide? Honestly though firing squad "looks" worse, but would probably result in the least amount of suffering if you used skilled marksmen. I think we turn to drugs because then it just looks like someone goes to sleep and we can divorce ourselves from the reality of death.

[mmhmm]

There are better choices than cyanide. You may be right about the reasoning behind the use of drugs as opposed to shooting or electrocuting someone. I do know, however, when people are dying of painful disease processes, or having surgery, we use drugs to relieve their suffering. These drugs can be very effective but must be used correctly in order to work properly. IMO, without knowing exactly what happened here, the failures are due to protocols not being conscientiously followed somewhere along the line. As Achelois pointed out, and I agree, it's not that difficult to end a life relatively painlessly if it's done correctly.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Isn't it obvious when a vein blows or whatever you call it?  I remember one IV that didn't work correctly for some reason - no idea why because I'm not a nurse - but there were obvious signs the nurse picked up on right away.  I had major swelling at the site, I suppose, because the fluid wasn't going into a vein.  Wouldn't a failure like that be pretty easy for a trained eye to spot?

[Wisconsin Beth]

Jul 24, 2014 11:21:55 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Isn't it obvious when a vein blows or whatever you call it?  I remember one IV that didn't work correctly for some reason - no idea why because I'm not a nurse - but there were obvious signs the nurse picked up on right away.  I had major swelling at the site, I suppose, because the fluid wasn't going into a vein.  Wouldn't a failure like that be pretty easy for a trained eye to spot?

I remember reading somewhere that training on this is an issue.  

[mmhmm]

If a vein "blows" while a slow drip is going, it might be a bit before you know. In these cases, however, the drug is being injected, not dripped in, so infusion is faster and you should see evidence the vein isn't working properly. Before any drug is injected into a venous site, the protocol is to test the site with 5cc - 10cc normal saline first and watch what happens with that. If the site shows evidence of swelling, it's not viable and a new site needs to be obtained. The vast majority of drugs are to be "pushed" slowly, not rapidly, to avoid "blowing" the site. The larger the vein, the less likely such complications will develop. There are a lot of things to look for and these should be determined before any procedures are undertaken, IMO.

[Deleted]

The "patient" was sedated and unaware the whole time.  His girlfriend had a restraining order on him for beating her up.  He later went to her fathers body shop and killed her father and killed her as she begged for mercy.  For some reason, him gasping for a while when unconcious as less than effective drugs killed him, doesn't seem  very important in the context of what he was.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Jul 24, 2014 11:21:55 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Isn't it obvious when a vein blows or whatever you call it?  I remember one IV that didn't work correctly for some reason - no idea why because I'm not a nurse - but there were obvious signs the nurse picked up on right away.  I had major swelling at the site, I suppose, because the fluid wasn't going into a vein.  Wouldn't a failure like that be pretty easy for a trained eye to spot?

Not always.

I had a vein blow during a transfusion and it was horribly painful, but the bruise didn't show up for 24 hours.  Where my IV was located, it really didn't blow up much because of how slow they were running the blood.  If it was a big bolus of something, you might see something.

[Shooby]

Exactly. Boo freaking hoo.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Jul 24, 2014 11:43:19 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

The "patient" was sedated and unaware the whole time.  His girlfriend had a restraining order on him for beating her up.  He later went to her fathers body shop and killed her father and killed her as she begged for mercy.  For some reason, him gasping for a while when unconcious as less than effective drugs killed him, doesn't seem  very important in context of what he was.

Perhaps not, but being horrified at what happened is very important in the context of who I am.  I'm not sorry this guy is dead.  I've never in my life celebrated someone's death, but there have been plenty I'm not sorry for.  I don't know that he was "unaware" and neither does anyone else since he isn't here to tell us.

I'm not horrified at his death.  I'm horrified at the way it was carried out.  If this is the way we choose to carry out justice, we need to find a better humane way.  Otherwise, there is no difference between him...and us.

[Shooby]

Well, what are the qualifications to be an Executioner? Non-medical people might not be very good at doing IVs or realizing when one isn't in the vein. I googled but can't find the qualifications.

[achelois]

Jul 24, 2014 11:43:19 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

The "patient" was sedated and unaware the whole time.  His girlfriend had a restraining order on him for beating her up.  He later went to her fathers body shop and killed her father and killed her as she begged for mercy.  For some reason, him gasping for a while when unconcious as less than effective drugs killed him, doesn't seem  very important in the context of what he was.

It is inefficient if the objective is to kill him. 

If the objective is to torture either him and/orthe family members/witnesses, there are better, more efficient ways to do that, too.

They just really need to decide what they want to do, unless mediocrity all around is their goal. 

[mmhmm]

I would imagine those qualifications vary by state, just as the process varies by state, Shoobs.

[Sam_2.0]

Jul 24, 2014 11:50:40 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Well, what are the qualifications to be an Executioner? Non-medical people might not be very good at doing IVs or realizing when one isn't in the vein. I googled but can't find the qualifications.

I believe you just have to be a jail employee. I don't know that these people get much medical training at all, and it is very difficult to find a trained medical professional willing to do this. Although there has to be someone out there with the right training that supports the premise of the death penalty and also wishes to see it carried out as humanely as possible that would be willing to do the job.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 24, 2014 11:43:19 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

The "patient" was sedated and unaware the whole time.  His girlfriend had a restraining order on him for beating her up.  He later went to her fathers body shop and killed her father and killed her as she begged for mercy.  For some reason, him gasping for a while when unconcious as less than effective drugs killed him, doesn't seem  very important in the context of what he was.

Not knowing how long it took the two victims to die, let us assume they slowly bled to death.  Should we match how long it took the victims to die with how long it should take the killer to die Too?  Should we anasthetize the killer and then open a vein or cut off a couple of toes or fingers and let him bleed to death too?  

True, my example is over the top but an execution should be swift and without any glitches.  

[regina24601]

I heard a story on NPR a few months ago, the last time this happened (in Oklahoma, I think?) One major issue is definitely the training (or lack thereof) of the person administering the drugs.  Because killing someone by definition is contrary to the Hippocratic Oath, no licensed professional (doctor, nurse, etc.) is allowed by their respective boards to administer a lethal injection, or else their license will be suspended.

So you end up with Barney Fife administering lethal drugs.  Yikes.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Jul 24, 2014 12:04:48 GMT -5 regina24601 said:

I heard a story on NPR a few months ago, the last time this happened (in Oklahoma, I think?) One major issue is definitely the training (or lack thereof) of the person administering the drugs.  Because killing someone by definition is contrary to the Hippocratic Oath, no licensed professional (doctor, nurse, etc.) is allowed by their respective boards to administer a lethal injection, or else their license will be suspended.

So you end up with Barney Fife administering lethal drugs.  Yikes.

Yep. 

And in this case, Wood asked what drugs were going to be used, how they were to be injected and either whom was going to do them or what kind of training they had.  And it was denied. 

[justme]

Can't you just give em a huge dose of morphine to overdose on?

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2014 11:51:55 GMT -5 achelois said:

Jul 24, 2014 11:43:19 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

The "patient" was sedated and unaware the whole time.  His girlfriend had a restraining order on him for beating her up.  He later went to her fathers body shop and killed her father and killed her as she begged for mercy.  For some reason, him gasping for a while when unconcious as less than effective drugs killed him, doesn't seem  very important in the context of what he was.

It is inefficient if the objective is to kill him. 

If the objective is to torture either him and/orthe family members/witnesses, there are better, more efficient ways to do that, too.

They just really need to decide what they want to do, unless mediocrity all around is their goal. 

Is efficiency a requirement ? I don't think the objective was torture for friends and family. More like lack of training in this case, or effective drugs. I'm a death by firearms person myself. Minimum 30/caliber with a minimum 200/grain bullet with a minimum 3200/fps at about 10 feet. Laser aim zeroed at 10 feet with head immobilized and rifle in a gun vise. Gun aimed to pass through center of brain pan. Instant death with the ammo cost at about two dollars. Effective and torture free.

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2014 12:03:44 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 24, 2014 11:43:19 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

The "patient" was sedated and unaware the whole time.  His girlfriend had a restraining order on him for beating her up.  He later went to her fathers body shop and killed her father and killed her as she begged for mercy.  For some reason, him gasping for a while when unconcious as less than effective drugs killed him, doesn't seem  very important in the context of what he was.

Not knowing how long it took the two victims to die, let us assume they slowly bled to death.  Should we match how long it took the victims to die with how long it should take the killer to die Too?  Should we anasthetize the killer and then open a vein or cut off a couple of toes or fingers and let him bleed to death too?  

True, my example is over the top but an execution should be swift and without any glitches.  

Agreed, see post # 54.

[b2r]

The lack of lethal drugs, and the fight over keeping new ones secret, are partly the result of a remarkably effective campaign by opponents of the death penalty, who have, in effect, taken their efforts from the court room to the boardroom.

Each time a state has found a new source for a drug to use in executions, Reprieve, an anti-death penalty organization based in London, in collaboration with death penalty lawyers in the United States, has used freedom of information laws, the local news media and the powers of persuasion to compel the drug's manufacturer to cut off the supply.

"Who's easier to persuade? The Supreme Court or a corporation that has financial interests?" said Clive Stafford Smith, a British-American, who was a death penalty lawyer in the South for many years before founding Reprieve. "You can make it not worth their while to allow their drugs in executions."

www.propublica.org/article/a-prolonged-stay-the-reasons-behind-the-slow-pace-of-executions/single#

[Green Eyed Lady]

I apologize for not being able to provide links, but some quick reading showed me that, in Kentucky, the execution team (for lethal injections) does consist of medical professionals.    The team includes:

The warden and/or assistant warder and two IV team members from the following professions:

(a) Phlebotomist;

(b) Emergency Medical Technician;

(c) Paramedic; or

(d) Military Corpsman.

It also requires that the above have one year of experience in their field (not much if you ask me) and that they practice 10 executions a year, inserting 2 IVs into volunteers prior to the real execution.

I'll try to provide the link later

[Tennesseer]

Efficiency is the most important requirement.

[achelois]

Jul 24, 2014 12:11:18 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Jul 24, 2014 11:51:55 GMT -5 achelois said:

It is inefficient if the objective is to kill him. 

If the objective is to torture either him and/orthe family members/witnesses, there are better, more efficient ways to do that, too.

They just really need to decide what they want to do, unless mediocrity all around is their goal. 

Is efficiency a requirement ? I don't think the objective was torture for friends and family. More like lack of training in this case, or effective drugs. I'm a death by firearms person myself. Minimum 30/caliber with a minimum 200/grain bullet with a minimum 3200/fps at about 10 feet. Laser aim zeroed at 10 feet with head immobilized and rifle in a gun vise. Gun aimed to pass through center of brain pan. Instant death with the ammo cost at about two dollars. Effective and torture free.

I personally appreciate efficiency, however I would also think it would be inefficient to have someone with a gun take three, four, five shots to kill someone. The point is: decide on an objective, and a method and then carry it out smoothly. 

Efficiency apparently is not a requirement. If it were, we would not have things like this occurring. 

I also did not Say that the objective was torture for friends and family--however  the RESULT was.