The First State Use Lethal Injection For Execution

Science has played a role in the debate over the death penalty for some time. One question concerning science and the death penalty include, questioning the ethical appeal of using executed bodies for anatomical research. People can understand the benefit of doing so since the bodies are “fresh” and they allow researchers more control of their subjects, since they know how the person died, when the person died, and the exact time of death; etc. but the concern is encompassed around the consent and knowledge of the criminal about how their bodies will be used after their execution. Another issue is the people who administer lethal injections are rarely properly qualified due to many physicians refusing to participate in the executions. Anatomists have been using the bodies of executed criminals for years, but there is a need for an ethical law code regarding where and how anatomists acquire bodies. (HILDEBRANDT) This is because some people question using executed criminals for research since they are usually not asked or aware of the potential use of their bodies after death.

The State of Texas was the first to perform a lethal injection execution and it is ranked first in executions as far back as 1976. Approximately, there have been over two hundred and eighty death penalties and a hundred and sixteen executions from 1982. Lethal injection involves injecting one or a variety of drugs into the person for the main cause of immediate death to him or her ("Texas | Death Penalty Information Center"). Characteristically, three drugs have been used. Sodium thiopental is an anesthesia which causes sleep, injecting with pancuronium bromide for paralysis of the muscles and to cause respiratory failure and the potassium chloride stops the heart from pumping. An intravenous salty drip is started in the arm of the prisoner

Physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia is still under scrutiny for a number of reasons. “In spring, 1996, the Ninth and Second Circuits were the first circuit courts in the country to find a constitutional prohibition against laws which make physician-assisted suicide a crime” (Martyn & Bourguignon, 1997). New York was one of the states that followed this prohibition. Eventually, The Ninth and Second Circuit, “allow physician-assisted suicide while attempting to protect individuals from unacceptable harms, such as involuntary euthanasia” (Martyn & Bourguignon, 1997). An assumption can be made, that euthanasia involves a licensed physician to play an active role in this partaking, and it’s where the patient prepares to die at.

Having to execute prisoners in Texas is a critical issue in our criminal justice system. The executions are carried out on capital murderers. It all started back in the 1800’s when counties carryed out their own exectution method; prisoners were hung. Than, in the1920’s the state of Texas ordered that all executions were to be carried out to Walls Unit, Huntsville for “The Electric Chair.” Ever since 1982, Texas was the first U.S state to execute with the “Lethal Injection.” The executions in Texas are carried out in various ways, but the primary way of executing inmates now is by lethal injection.

On April 29, 2014, Oklahoma execution Clayton Lockett using a three-drug lethal injection procedure. The procedure went poorly; Lockett awoke after the injection of the drugs that were supposed to render him unconscious and did not die until about 40 minutes later. Oklahoma suspended all subsequent executions until the incident could be be investigated and subsequently adopted a new protocol that place higher emphasis on making sure the injection was done properly. The new protocol is also allowed for four alternative drug combinations, one of which used midazolam as the initial drug, as the did the the protocol used in the Lockett execution.

Before convicts are executed, it is a requirement by the law that they be treated to ensure that they are not only physically fit but also healthy. I am convinced that all types of prescription are ought to cure people, not readying them to experience death through statutory execution, whether one is on death row or not. It is the duty of every doctor under the law to ensure that each convict is healthy before the government can deprive his or her life. The law is unethical since it does not recognize that the duties of physicians are to render support to the people, save individuals’ lives as well as help individuals enhance the standard of their lives. When physicians graduate from their processional training, they vow on oath to assist in

In April 29, 2014, a man by the name of Clayton Lockett was executed in Oklahoma using a three-drug lethal injection. Although the Clayton did die of the injection, his death didn't come until forty minutes after his injections. A proper procedure was to be done, so that Clayton and any other man or woman given lethal injection would go to sleep with the first injection, the kept asleep with the second, and finally killed with the last injection. In Clayton’s case, he awoke after the injection of the drugs that we suppose to render him unconscious. After his death Charles Warner and around 20 other inmates began to sue multiple state officials and stated that the lethal injection was in violation of the 8th amendment, which

Lethal injections have been around for many years with the same basic idea and procedure. Lethal injection uses three drugs, a fast acting barbiturate that sedates the inmate and the drug Tubocurarine that paralyzes the inmate, and finally potassium chloride is used to stop his heart. These methods have been a controversial issue for many reasons. People that supports lethal injection believes that it is more humane method of execution than any other because it cause little or no pain. It also argued that it is less expensive than detaining or placing someone in jail for life. As far as lethal injection been unconstitutional because the procedure causes unusual pain and suffering, some people believe that someone who has kill countless people deserve to physical

I believe that the government cannot take invasive, involuntary action using medical personnel whom are sworn to heal, save and treat people and ask them to be a part of the psychotic inmates execution. In the 2003, Liptak article, “State Can Make Inmate Sane Enough to Execute,” stated that the American Medical Association's ethical guidelines prohibit giving medical treatment that would make people competent to be executed (Liptak,

Although lethal injections and juvenile criminals seem unrelated topics, they both deal with problems in the criminal justice system. The titles are “Should Juvenile Criminals Be Sentenced Like Adults?” by Abigail Pesta. Pesta is an award-winning journalist and an author; she was also a graduate from the University of Notre Dame. “Lethal Injection for Execution: Chemical Asphyxiation?” by Teresa A. Zimmerman, Jonathan Sheldon, David A. Lubarsky, Francisco Lopez-Munoz, Linda Waterman, Richard Weisman, and Leonidas G. Koniaris. These writers graduated from the University of Miami. However, all were medical majors, but in different areas. In Pesta’s article she tells the story about a young man named Sean, who spent time behind bars in Riker’s Island, NY. In this article the authors gave specific information about the effects of lethal injections and whether if they act as intended or not. The audience for both is the public, justice system, and people in the medical field. The purpose of the first article is to inform the audience on someone’s perspective behind bars and how it affected them. Also, this article was thesis driven. Then the second article’s purpose is to show how unreliable lethal injections. The format of this article is IMRAD. These two articles show us how the justice system is flawed.

Moral behavior of a murderer is considered lacking in many cases, but how are physicians who administer a lethal dosage of drugs any different? There are many physicians who are participating in assisted suicide, but they all have lives within their hands. They are responsible for the lives they have been entrusted with. In Norway any physician that helped with assisted suicide was charged with “accessory to murder.” In the United States there are many laws regarding murder, but accessory to murder is also a charge. A person who is considered an accessory to murder is “not typically present at the scene of the crime, but contributes to the success of the crime before or after the fact.” This statement creates a controversial wave within the country. Those physicians who are prescribing deadly doses of medication are knowingly providing a means to kill someone. Even though the physician does not administer the drugs themselves, the patient is still being killed because of the physician’s prescription.

Inmates in Oklahoma State Penitentiary, located in McAlester, Oklahoma, sued state officials after the botched execution of Clayton Lockett on April 29, 2014 led to Lockett laying in agonizing pain for 40 minutes after receiving the lethal injection cocktail, waiting for his heart attack to kill him (Konrad, Web). Richard E. Glossip and the other death row inmates petition the Court, believing that the use of midazolam as the initial drug of execution violated the Eight Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment (S. Ct, p.1). The Supreme Court of the United States of America denied the motion in a 5-4 ruling, stating prisoners “failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the

In our country the premise of physician assisted death conjures images of suicidal madmen, hell bent on death and mayhem. The reality is, that could not be farther from the truth. So why is there a stigma on assisting patients with taking their own life? Others look at this as a dignified means to those suffering a terrible fate. There are many issues that weight heavy on the difference between physician assisted and vs. natural death. Is it cruel to let a terminal ill patient who will suffer horrendously until nature take its course? Would it be more humane to allow a patient to pass peacefully without the suffering or enduring painful end? This report will examine physician assisted death

The argument presented here is whether a government can take invasive, involuntary action using medical personnel who are sworn to heal, save and treat when the result of their medical application and experience is not only healing, treating and saving but also has the result of causing execution of a death row inmate/patient such as Singleton.

Several states have turned to the sedative midazolam after not being able to obtain sodium thiopental and pentobarbital as the initial drug used to place inmates in an unconscious state” (Hudson 1). Since sodium thiopental and pentobarbital are no longer allowed in use, states have turned to midazolam. Midazolam ultimately does the same job, but not as effectively. The lack of sodium thiopental and pentobarbital leaves midazolam as the alternative, even though it is not as powerful to create and unconscious like- state (Hudson 2). The unconscious like- state is a necessity to perform the death penalty without going against the Eighth Amendment, due to inflicting pain. Clayton Lockett is an example of someone who was sentenced to death, given midazolam, and suffered during execution. In his procedure, he was only administered 100 milligrams of midazolam, which was not enough (Hudson 2). “... Lockett awoke during the execution process and, by several accounts, suffered a very painful death” (Hudson 2). Lockett’s experience clearly goes against the Eighth Amendment, because “cruel and unusual