Making the "humane" as inhumane as humanly possible?

This is going to sound a bit crazy, but something I've been reading repeatedly in arguments over the lethal injection debate makes no sense to me, and I think it has more to do with the inherently incompetent nature of government than it does with the procedure, which is being described as too cruel to be used on animals:

An anesthesiologist testified Monday that Ohio's lethal injection procedure isn't appropriate for dogs or cats, let alone humans.

Dr. Mark Heath's testimony on behalf of two murder defendants came in a Lorain County hearing on the constitutionality of state's method for putting prisoners to death.

Heath, an assistant professor of anesthesiology at Columbia University, says it's possible to perform lethal injection of prisoners in a humane manner, but that Ohio's method falls below the standard for euthanizing household pets.

Ohio requires its executions to be carried out "in a professional, humane, sensitive and dignified manner." The two men facing murder charges say the state's lethal injection procedure doesn't give the quick and painless deaths required by state law.

Lethal injections are on hold nationally while the U.S. Supreme Court considers a challenge in a case from Kentucky, which is among the roughly three dozen states that administer three drugs in succession to sedate, paralyze and kill prisoners.

The major criticism of the three-drug execution procedure is that if the executioner administers too little anesthetic or makes mistakes in injecting it, the inmate could suffer excruciating pain from the other two drugs.

Difficulties with two executions in recent years, in which the execution team struggled to find suitable veins in inmates' arms, brought complaints that the method is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual. Ohio officials stand by the procedure.

Of course they stand by the procedure. That's their job.

This is not new. I've read numerous accounts like this about botched lethal injections involving missed veins, deaths taking a half an hour or more, chemical burns, and among the cases cited by cited by Amnesty International was one in which "an autopsy found 19 puncture marks resulting from attempts to establish an IV line."

The lawyers for the prisoners are right. We wouldn't kill a dog that way.

What bothers me about this is that any doctor, nurse, veterinarian, or even veterinary assistant could do a better job than these prison guards do. Prison guards (known in bureaucratese as "execution teams") are not trained in basic medical techniques, and no amount of regulations can guarantee that a guard can obtain phlebotomist skills. They're simply told what to to in bureaucratically incomprehensible policy and procedure manuals and then they learn on the job. (Sorry, but if I were having blood drawn I wouldn't want a prison guard who does maybe one execution per year coming anywhere near me with a needle.)

Two obvious, glaring problems stand out.

First, why on earth can't these state governments hire a technician who knows how to find a vein to come in and just do it? There's no need to force a doctor to violate the Hippocratic Oath or anything; just hire someone who has worked for a blood bank or a vet. Or hell, even a former junkie. The problem (at least so it seems to me) is that the tradition has always been that prison guards carry out executions, and while any old fool can pull a switch or spring a trap, finding a vein requires skill. (And finding a vein under the formal public pressures inherent in a public execution requires more than technical skill.)

The other issue that has long bugged me about this debate is that it wouldn't even be necessary to worry about the inability to find a vein if they did what every compassionate vet does these days (and what was done to Puff when his time came).

Simply administer a sedative first.

No vein is needed. Just a simple shot anywhere in the body (the arm or the butt will do fine), and after a minute or so, the result is complete and total loss of consciousness. In the case of my dog Puff, he went peacefully, literally, to sleep, and once he was asleep, the vet found the vein, and injected the massive dose of pentabarbital (which promptly stopped his heart, killing him instantly).

What in the hell is wrong with that? Nothing could be more humane, yet it doesn't seem to have ever occurred to the bureaucrats. You'd almost think that the goal was not humanely assuring the condemned person's exit from this world, but incompetently fussing around and messing with his last few minutes in the hope that he'll die consciously or something.

Is that it? Is there a sadistic urge to make people not merely die, but die "consciously"?

I support capital punishment, but I don't see any logical or moral reason why people have to die in a conscious manner. What's the difference to society between the prisoner closing his eyes and going to sleep and getting the fatal shot later, as opposed to having to getting all set up with incompetently placed IV lines in the hope of receiving the "three ingredient" shot while he is conscious?

(Parenthetically, a prisoner first rendered unconscious by a tranquilizer could be killed in any manner at all. I suppose if the public has an emotional need for blood, he could be shot. Or even guillotined.)

This is not logical. The goal of lethal injection was supposedly to make it humane, right?

So.....

What part of the word "humane" don't they understand?

AFTERTHOUGHT: It occurs to me that maybe there's an argument here for bringing back traditional executioners -- people who specialize in killing. There's a reason why executioners are not normal people, and that's because most normal people have trouble carrying out the premeditated killing of another human being. (This might explain why trained marksmen who never miss at target practice often miss live human suspects.) It might be unreasonable to expect prison guards to just be able to strap a man down and "find a vein" in high-profile circumstances where even a trained phlebotomist might have problems. In any event, while lethal injection arises from the theory of a humane death, it has been rendered grotesque in its application (and probably cruel and unusual punishment) when there's no theoretical reason it should be.

posted by Eric on 04.07.08 at 02:33 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/6437






Comments

I was formulating my two cents as I read your post, but you beat me to the punch at the very end... If they want quick and painless, why not decapitation? Sure, if you want to make it as easy as possible, you administer a sedative first. But sedative or not, there are few quicker ways to go, and I'd wager it's as painless as anything we currently have as an option.

John S.   ·  April 7, 2008 04:29 PM

I see no problem with the guillotine. Society considers it messy and morbid, though. I really can't understand why government took a simple idea -- making execution humane, which lethal injection would be -- and then bungled it. (And they're going to fix the economy?)

You reminded me of something else. Executions under the old Soviet system were probably as humane as you can get, as the condemned prisoners were never told when they were going to be shot. Instead, they'd be told their case was still "under review," and then one day at random they'd be shot in the back of the head while being walked by the guards on what they thought was just another normal routine. They never saw it coming, and didn't think it was coming.

(Not that Stalin or his henchmen would have been especially motivated to do anything for humane reasons. I suspect the random bullet in the back of the head system just made it easier to administer. Beats having to wrestle with a resisting condemned man.)

Eric Scheie   ·  April 7, 2008 04:47 PM

I was in the hospital about ten years ago, it was near impossible for the nurse to find a vein for the IV, it took two of them poking and prodding me with a needle and one of those surgical tubes wrapped around my arm. They finally found one, but not before bruising up my hands, feet, and the area between my forearm and my bicep.

I agree that all prisons should have a doctor on hand to at least place the needle, but the hippocratic oath might stop them from administering the drugs.

On to the crux of the argument, at least for me, is this passage:

"in a professional, humane, sensitive and dignified manner."

You've probably heard this before, but were these two murderers humane, sensitive and dignified to their victims? I say kill these two exactly the same way that they killed their victim, to me, that is justice.

John   ·  April 7, 2008 06:08 PM

I lack sympathy for the prisoners. I would actually appreciate the chance to work as an executioner - I'll flip the switch or shoot the guy. If the bastard is guilty, then I would have no remorse whatsoever.

OmegaPaladin   ·  April 7, 2008 09:28 PM

I don't know about bringing back traditional 'executioners', but perhaps traditional execution methods. I mean, we're talking about killing someone, taking their life away here, and I don't see why people who can stomach that would be squeamish enough to demand that said death be absolutely, 100% pain-free.

When I first came to this site, I was amused by your poll on ancient execution methods. All of those would obviously (to most people, I hope) constitute cruel and unusual punishment. But death by firing squad or by hanging done in such a way as to break the neck on the fall?

I'm reminded of a discussion two soldiers had in Kubrick's "Paths of Glory". One soldier wonders why people are more worried about being killed by bayonets or gas than gunshot wounds, and theorizes that they're more afraid of being hurt than being killed. The other soldier (trying to sleep) dismisses this with a simple "Nobody wants to die."

Personally, if sentenced to death, I'd prefer it to be by firing squad, provided I was allowed to die standing upright (tied, I would presume) and preferably outside. I would consider that more dignified than strapped to a gurney and subjected to some kind of quasi-medical procedure.

P. Aeneas   ·  April 7, 2008 10:20 PM

Bottle of bourbon and a pile-driver to the head.

Messy, but the most instantaneous destruction of all neurological activity there is. Funerals would have to be closed-casket, but that's a small price to pay for mooting the arguments of the "humane" opponents of execution.

I proposed this in a medical ethics class and, while the students were appalled and astonished, the professor was intrigued and supportive. He did suggest an alternate sedative to the bourbon and noted that the "ick"-factor would prevent the adoption of this method, but he did agree that it was perhaps the surest way posited of minimizing potential suffering.

Uncle Pinky   ·  April 8, 2008 01:41 AM

Phelps, that's the theory; the problem is that they're often not finding the vein, so it doesn't go in properly or in the right order. This could easily be solved by rendering the condemned unconscious with an IM injection of a sedative first, as vets do. Then they could take their time.

People who argue over whether cruelty should be prevented are missing my point, which is that it can easily be rendered totally humane. Otherwise, these mistakes and botched executions supply endless arguments which tend to undermine capital punishment.

Eric Scheie   ·  April 8, 2008 03:58 PM

Well, I *am* an anesthesiologist. Bring back the gas chamber. Fill it with 100% nitrogen. Quick, foolproof, absolutely painless. You could put on an EKG if you like, to confirm, but it's just a matter of time.

The burning sensation you get when holding your breath is from CO2 buildup, not lack of oxygen.

Devilbunny   ·  April 8, 2008 10:44 PM

It was testified back in the Teri Schiavo case that death by dehydration was totally painless, if slow.

Then there is Dr. Death's device.

Devilbunny's nitrogen asphyxiation technique sounds good too.

And why not put a mickey finn in the condemned's food?

LarryD   ·  April 9, 2008 05:05 PM

How about a nice stabbing chair like Chris Rock suggested?

Phelps   ·  April 18, 2008 12:36 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



April 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits