Last U.S. Manufacturer of Lethal Injection Drug Ends Production

[T-Rexx]

Hospira, the only remaining US manufacturer of sodium thiopental, has announced it will stop production of the drug at its North Carolina plant. Hospira says it is responding to complaints from its overseas customers, who object to buying drugs from a company that helps to support capital punishment.

Hospira has shifted production to a more modern plant in Lescate, Italy. The company has promised Italian authorities that none of the drug produced in Lescate will be used to put humans to death. A bill overwhelmingly passed the Italian Parliament on December 22, requiring that Hospira keep sodium thiopental made in Italy out of prisons.

Sodium thiopental is used mostly as an anesthetic, not primarily for lethal injections. It is part of a 3 drug regimen typically employed by American states during capital executions. The three drugs sedate, paralyze, and stop the heart.

All but one of the 35 US states employing the death penalty use the 3 drug protocol involving sodium thiopental. It is not so easy for states to move to other (foreign) providers of sodium thiopental, since the Hospira brand is the only one approved by the FDA for use in the USA. It is also not so easy for states to switch to alternative anesthetics, as use of sodium thiopental is typically required under state laws. So, switching will require passage of legislation in the various states (and will probably trigger a bunch of lawsuits by inmates on death row).

Of course, the vast majority of Hospira sodium thiopental manufactured in the USA was used for medical purposes, not lethal injections. Hospira has long objected to the use of its products in capital punishment, but has not previously acted to cut off the supply to authorities. The company has expressed regret that circumstances have compelled it to shift production overseas. The company continues to manufacture the other two components of the 3 drug regimen, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride, both of which have other, medical uses.

A shortage of sodium thiopental has already delayed executions in Arizona, California, Kentucky, Ohio and Oklahoma. It is unclear what effect the permanent discontinuation of production will have on executions in the United States.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110121/ap_on_re_us/us_execution_drug_shortage

 

[jackoroe]

So, we go back to stoning. Problem solved!

 

[T-Rexx]

^ The concept of "cruel and unusual punishment" in the US has never made sense to me.

By whatever means, it is still death!

Is not death itself the ultimate in "cruel and unusual" punishments?

 

[jackoroe]

The elements are cruel and unusual. Cruel is OK. Unusual is OK. Both together are a no-no. Death is actually a seizure, as matter of law believe it or not.

 

[BostonPirate]

The death penalty is meant to be .... well a penalty. There is no polite way to take a life.

I don't believe in the death penalty, but if a state wants to go in that direction, then they need to own what that means. Accept that they are killing in the name of justice, that it is not pretty and usually always painful, and either live with it or change the policy.

 

[swerve]

The death penalty lost its power through the long drawn out appeals process...

Therefore, IMO, it shouldn't even exist...

Especially when you have governors like Rick Perry in Texas who will STILL EXECUTE a prisoner EVEN WHEN the EXPERTS say that he wasn't guilty of the crime he was charged with...

http://deathpenaltynews.blogspot.com/2011/01/texas-panel-re-examines-arson-execution.html

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

The death penalty is meant to be .... well a penalty. There is no polite way to take a life.

Excepting the argument that innocents may die for a moment, the question remains: If someone takes the life of someone else, possibly quite a few someone elses, and you did so in a particularly heinous fashion, why does that person still have a right to life? The death penalty is not for most crimes, like it was even a century or two ago, but for crimes in which the person calculatingly went after someone else, killed that person, and did so in a manner wherein there is no doubt that the person suffered tremendously, physically and/or mentally before they were allowed to die.

Better question: What is the applicable punishment?

Accept that they are killing in the name of justice, that it is not pretty and usually always painful, and either live with it or change the policy.

The "always painful" part is pure BS. The entire point behind the sodium thiopental being in the mix was to ensure that the tried, convicted criminal who killed someone else painfully feels no pain at the end. The degree of pain suffered by the criminal has almost always been the hallmark question if a method of execution is cruel or not, and if it were painful, then it's usually been abandoned.

Yeesh...

RG

 

[BostonPirate]

Excepting the argument that innocents may die for a moment, the question remains: If someone takes the life of someone else, possibly quite a few someone elses, and you did so in a particularly heinous fashion, why does that person still have a right to life? The death penalty is not for most crimes, like it was even a century or two ago, but for crimes in which the person calculatingly went after someone else, killed that person, and did so in a manner wherein there is no doubt that the person suffered tremendously, physically and/or mentally before they were allowed to die.

Better question: What is the applicable punishment?


The "always painful" part is pure BS. The entire point behind the sodium thiopental being in the mix was to ensure that the tried, convicted criminal who killed someone else painfully feels no pain at the end. The degree of pain suffered by the criminal has almost always been the hallmark question if a method of execution is cruel or not, and if it were painful, then it's usually been abandoned.

Yeesh...

RG

There are many things that can get you the death penalty in just as many states that use it.

And BTW? theres no proof that lethal injection is NOt painful.

Anybody ever live to describe the experience to you?

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

The death penalty lost its power through the long drawn out appeals process...

So you speed up the appeals process, while providing top-notch defense for the accused. At the same time slow down the original trial to allow emotions to die down a bit. If someone is using his power to expedite a death penalty case, I think an additional proviso should make that person culpable for the death so caused. In essence, ensure that the defendant has no reason to offer an appeal while at the same time making sure that if there is even the slightest element of tomfoolery it can be rooted out, and punished.

I agree that the death penalty system has flaws, but I do think that there is a place for it. Obviously I want it reserved for only those times when the crime is particularly heinous, but I do want it around.

RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

There are many things that can get you the death penalty in just as many states that use it.

Such as? And I want to see at least 31 reasons that aren't some re-iteration of murder, rape, and torture.

And BTW? theres no proof that lethal injection is NOt painful.

Actually, there is. After all, there are a number of machines hooked up to the person in order to monitor the person's various systems, and those in the medical profession know what to look for on those monitors as to what would show pain. The purpose of the anesthetic, after all, is to ensure that there is no pain felt by the person.

So, yeah; there is reasonable proof of no pain, or at least as little as possible.

RG

 

[swerve]

^^I actually have mixed feelings about speeding up the process as I don't EVER like hearing about cases like the one I posted the link to...

Having said that -- I've heard a GRUESOME theory about quickly killing the criminal in the SAME MANNER in which he killed the victims -- it might actually WORK as a deterrent. (although I'm not sure if ANYONE is sadistic enough to carry out the actual death sentence)...

 

[hotatlboi]

The elements are cruel and unusual. Cruel is OK. Unusual is OK. Both together are a no-no.

That's absurd. I don't think I've ever heard that argument before.

 

[joaama]

I'm very happy about this.

Hopefully they'll stop murdering people now.

 

[BostonPirate]

Such as? And I want to see at least 31 reasons that aren't some re-iteration of murder, rape, and torture.


Actually, there is. After all, there are a number of machines hooked up to the person in order to monitor the person's various systems, and those in the medical profession know what to look for on those monitors as to what would show pain. The purpose of the anesthetic, after all, is to ensure that there is no pain felt by the person.

So, yeah; there is reasonable proof of no pain, or at least as little as possible.

RG

I had my say and you had yours...lol

You want 31 reasons? google it. Thanks for playing and answering my post though..

 

[frankfrank]

The elements are cruel and unusual. Cruel is OK. Unusual is OK. Both together are a no-no. Death is actually a seizure, as matter of law believe it or not.

That's absurd. I don't think I've ever heard that argument before.

I've never heard the argument before, either, but I've always WONDERED about it, always hoping it will never be used as a defense for heinous methods, such as death via torture.

After all, if a compact of most of the "capital punishment states" got together and said, here forth, that the method of execution shall be immersion in a vat of boiling water (starting feet first, and going two inches per hour), it would no longer be UNUSUAL, would it?

My analytical mind noticed and thought about the "AND" part at least 20-25 years ago...and case law is often based on PRECISE interpretation of what's written.

Rather than thinking the idea is "absurd," I'm almost surprised that I don't remember it being used as a justification anywhere.

 

[jackoroe]

I've never heard the argument before, either, but I've always WONDERED about it, always hoping it will never be used as a defense for heinous methods, such as death via torture.

After all, if a compact of most of the "capital punishment states" got together and said, here forth, that the method of execution shall be immersion in a vat of boiling water (starting feet first, and going two inches per hour), it would no longer be UNUSUAL, would it?

My analytical mind noticed and thought about the "AND" part at least 20-25 years ago...and case law is often based on PRECISE interpretation of what's written.

Rather than thinking the idea is "absurd," I'm almost surprised that I don't remember it being used as a justification anywhere.

It would be much clearer had they used and/or instead of just and. I've mentioned this to a number of lawyers over the years and have usually been greeted by a knowing smile. I'm not aware of it having ever been used as a defense anywhere either. It would be interesting to know if it has ever been raised as an issue. Where's Construct when you need him?

 

[hotatlboi]

I'm not aware of it having ever been used as a defense anywhere either.

Probably because it's so nonsensical.

It seems obvious to me that the "and" is meaning that both forms are not allowed. Saying it is not the right word is a dumb semantic argument that ignores the obviously implied meaning.

 

[BostonPirate]

well...

we are splitting hairs... what cruel method of punishment isn't unusual?

and which unusual method of real punishment not cruel on some level.

II think the "and" is there for a reason. I did some reading. The amendment was lifted out of an old english law, I think written in the 1680's, that stopped judges from getting overly creative in their sentencing practices.

That considered, I think the eigth amendment was probably the grounds for federal standards for sentencing, if thats the case. Once a Jury decides someone is guilty, the punishment is codified, and they have a range to choose from.

But lets be clear here.

Lethal injection is not pretty. Its not as ugly as beheadings or flogging to death, but its cold efficiency is a cruelty unto itself.

 

[jackoroe]

Probably because it's so nonsensical.

It seems obvious to me that the "and" is meaning that both forms are not allowed. Saying it is not the right word is a dumb semantic argument that ignores the obviously implied meaning.

Don't know many lawyers, do you? And something is either obvious or implied. Not both.

 

[jackoroe]

Lethal injection is not pretty. Its not as ugly as beheadings or flogging to death, but its cold efficiency is a cruelty unto itself.

The existence of an almost antiseptic means of execution is designed to make society feel better about itself. The recipient is no less dead than had they been stoned, hanged or shot. I doubt any that anyone facing execution has considered themselves lucky to be getting a lethal injection as opposed to any other available method.