Talk:Lethal injection

Template:Onlinesource2004 Comment: the external link a) will not be available as long as the article b) (to say the least) doesn´t has the quality of the article ..may be just substantiated personal opinion say: what has pet pharmacology to do with capital sentence?

Comment: Shouldn't this article mention the use of lethal injection by the Nazi Dr. Karl Brandt between 1939 and 1941 as part of the T-4 Euthanasia Programme?

I am wondering why can't they use some kind of encephalogram to monitor brain behavior of the person being executed. Presumably being in a lot of pain would involve a high level of brain activity, unlike being unconscious. So if such high level of activity were detected, some other procedure could be used to finish the person off quickly. Watcher

Article at the moment: "Some doctors object to participating in executions, claiming that it violates their Hippocratic oath." -- is there actually any debate on this? Can we replace it with "Some doctors object to participating in executions, as that violates their Hippocratic oath." Ojw 20:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The few physicians that are willing to participate probably would disagree. I have no objection to changing the wording, however. -- Bk0 03:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're guaranteed to find "some" physicians who agree with any given proposition, and it's pretty meaningless to impute positions to such unnamed persons. A more informative statement would be something like, "The American Medical Association's Code of Medical Ethics forbids physician participation in executions, including such activities as "prescribing or administering... medications that are part of the execution procedure; monitoring vital signs... attending or observing an execution as a physician... rendering of technical advice regarding execution...selecting injection sites; starting intravenous lines as a port for a lethal injection device; prescribing, preparing, administering, or supervising injection drugs or their doses or types; inspecting, testing, or maintaining lethal injection devices; and consulting with or supervising lethal injection personnel." The AMA's Code of Medical Ethics is advisory rather than having any force in law, but most American physicians abide by it." But then someone would scream that that's "Americocentric". Perhaps some other similarly explicit code of ethics from some suitably non-American country can be found. Whether an action "seems" to violate one of the Hippocratic oaths is someone's (unattributed) opinion; explicit codes of medical ethics come with their own attribution.- Nunh-huh 03:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wordy rather than Americocentric maybe. This article will mostly be about America anyway, so no objection to mentioning AMA. The Hippocratic oath is universal so might be more relevant and understandable to many people. (it's also a moral thing rather than a legal one, so the two might be orthogonal)

My question was do the doctors who administer lethal injections believe that it's not a violation of their oath or are they ignoring that oath? Is the statement "this oath prohibits killing people" merely the opinion of "some doctors" (as the article currently implies)? Ojw 14:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"The" Hippocratic Oath is in fact several different similar oaths, and there are many physicians today who have never taken any one of them: they are far from universal. Almost no modern physicians have taken anything near the original oath, which is pledged to pagan gods, entails an obligation to financially support one's teachers, forbids urological surgery, euthenasia, and medical abortions, etc. The "Hippocratic" oaths have no special position regarding medical practices, other than their historical influence on current medical ethics, as manifested by medical boards and the various legal systems. - Nunh-huh 21:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1982 vs 1983

Since it appears that both are quoted as the date for the Texas thing, I have added a parenthetical citing the History Channel. Andre (talk) 01:30, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

My feeling is that the History Channel is just plain wrong. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice [1] (http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/drowfacts.htm)[2] (http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/executedoffenders.htm)[3] (http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/brookscharlielast.htm), Clark County Prosecutor [4] (http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/brooks006.htm)[5] (http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/methods.htm), Death Penalty Information Center [6] (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=15&did=410#ReinstatingtheDeathPenalty) all say 1982. Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:24, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Some more site that say 1982: Florida Corrections Commission [7] (http://www.fcc.state.fl.us/fcc/reports/methods/emstates.html), Texas Execution Information Center [8] (http://www.txexecutions.org/history.asp), Amnesty International [9] (http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:Yj3FzZxk7FUJ:web.amnesty.org/library/pdf/ACT500081999ENGLISH/%24File/ACT5000899.pdf+%22lethal+injection%22+1982+site:web.amnesty.org&hl=en&client=firefox-a)[10] (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engACT500011998#AAE). 02:33, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

• The History Channel is no kind of source. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice website is perfectly sufficient to demonstrate the 1982 date. Demi ^T/_C 02:40, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

I don't know why the History Channel isn't a source. I've modified the page to say that the History Channel quotes the date as 1983. It does, and it's valid to point out the discrepancy. Andre (talk) 19:57, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Okay then some more sources. Lethal injection: a stain on the face of medicine from the British Medical Journal [11] (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/325/7371/1026) has 1982 as well as a source for that date (Anderson K. A more "palatable" way of killing; Texas carries out first execution by lethal injection. Time 1982 Dec 20:28.). How Stuff Works [12] (http://people.howstuffworks.com/lethal-injection5.htm). I'm sorry but IMHO the History Channel is just plain wrong. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:26, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

And another one, this time a from the New York Times - it is their article from December 7, 1982 on the execution itself [13] (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes/118635001.html?did=118635001&FMT=ABS&FMTS=AI&date=Dec+7%2C+1982&author=By+ROBERT+REINHOLDSpecial+to+The+New+York+Times&desc=Technician+Executes+Murderer+in+Texas+By+Lethal+Injection). I will quote:

HUNTSVILLE, Tex., Tuesday, Dec. 7 -- The state of Texas injected Charles Brooks Jr. with a deadly combination of sedatives and drugs just after midnight today, making him the first condemned prisoner in the United States to die by lethal injection.

Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:30, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many sources state otherwise, we should report that the History Channel has it as the other date. Maybe it should only be a footnote, but it deserves to be reported. Andre (talk) 20:41, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Should we report a discrepancy in a secondary source, casting doubts on primary sources. What about if I found Charles Brooks death certificate? Or his death warrant? Would we still need to report about the History Channel and what seems to be a mistype on their part? Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:29, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I see no need to report this here, as this article is about Lethal Injection and not the errors of The History Channel's fact-checkers. Demi ^T/_C 06:43, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

"Sodium thiopental, in a dose high enough to cause death by itself: to put the victim to sleep" *assumes* what is explicitly controverted in the "Is Lethal Injection Painless?" section. It is, in fact, factually wrong. The dose of sodium pentathal is not sufficient to cause death by itself, although it may well cause unconsciousness long enough for the other two drugs to take effect. But if given along, the person will eventually wake up.