If it’s so easy to overdose and die from certain illicit drugs, why aren’t they used for prisoners receiving lethal injections?
In: 0
There are tons of ways to kill someone humanely. There are lots of drugs or methods which could work. But that isn’t really the issue.
The problem is that legislation about how condemned can be killed gets passed only with the support of a bunch of data showing it can be reliably and humanely done. So even though we can say that “a crapload of fentanyl” will certainly kill someone that isn’t a viable method of execution. A dosage which would kill one person won’t for another, there is a lack of data about how distressing the experience is to the condemned, and ultimately it just isn’t on the books as an approved method.
A major issue is that legislators are going to want some doctor to weigh in on if a method is humane and effective at killing people, a professional being there to administer the drugs, and a manufacturer being able to supply the drugs meeting a high standard. But drug manufacturers don’t really want to be associated with executions as the political fallout is very high and the number of potential customers is quite low. So the drug manufacturers tend to be unwilling to provide said products to the state for use in executions; fentanyl is still being produced and used for medical purposes but they won’t sell it for use in executions. Similarly it can be difficult to find a doctor willing to administer the lethal injections since they may have ethical and career objections to doing so. A doctor swears to do no harm and thinks maybe their future practice might be harmed by being known as the execution doctor, so they take a pass on the job.
Now the state has someone they want to kill but they can’t get drugs from a source that will verify their quality (as the manufacturer doesn’t want the bad PR), they can’t get a doctor to take the job, and the law requires both and doesn’t offer alternatives.
Latest Answers