|
Post by nils on Aug 3, 2014 0:22:24 GMT -6
As Joseph Wood lay on the gurney in Arizona’s death chamber, gasping and gulping, prison officials kept pumping execution drugs into the convicted killer’s system. By the time Wood died, after nearly two hours, he had been injected with 750mg each of midazolam and hydromorphone: 15 times the amounts called for in the state’s execution protocol. Wood’s death, on 23 July, was the third highly problematic execution in the US this year, following those of Dennis McGuire in Ohio in January and Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma in April, which were also drawn-out and led to accusations that the inmates may have endured a level of distress prohibited by the US constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment”. The sedative midazolam was used in all three cases. McGuire’s death marked the first time a state had used it in a two-drug protocol with hydromorphone, a painkiller. Even before that execution, medical experts warned that the experimental combination risked being ineffective and causing undue suffering. The revelation that Arizona injected Wood 15 times, amounting to a massive dose of the drugs, raises fresh doubts about the efficacy of the combination and the competence of those tasked with designing and implementing the procedure. Wood, 55, was put to death for the murders of his former girlfriend, Debbie Dietz, and her father, Eugene, in Tucson in 1989. Arizona’s governor, Jan Brewer, said she was concerned about the length of the execution and ordered a review into the state’s processes, which the Arizona Department of Corrections said in a media release would be independent, “thorough, transparent and comprehensive”. Arizona’s most recent execution before Wood, last October, took 17 minutes but used pentobarbital, a barbiturate. Drug shortages prompted by Europe-led sales bans mean that many states have resorted to new, often experimental, protocols. Such states are also shrouding details of suppliers and procedures in secrecy, in response to mounting concerns about the suitability of lethal injection as an execution method. These worries have given anti-death-penalty campaigners fresh impetus and prompted numerous legal challenges, including in Wood’s case. Eric Holder, the US attorney general, told PBS on Thursday he was troubled by the widespread lack of transparency and the recent prolonged deaths. A wide-ranging federal review of executions is ongoing. Charles Ryan, the Arizona prisons department’s director, has rejected claims that the execution was botched and said that the prison’s medical team verified several times that Wood was “comatose and never in pain”. The doctor who carried out Wood’s autopsy told the Arizona Capitol Times the intravenous lines were placed correctly – unlike in Lockett’s case, according to reports. However, medical experts told the Guardian last week that assertions by Arizona officials that Wood was “brain dead” during the execution are spurious. David Waisel, an associate professor of anaesthesia in Boston, said that simply increasing dosages, as Ohio has decided to do, is no guarantee that the drugs will be more effective at killing death-row prisoners. “Twice the dosage is not necessarily twice the effect,” he said, adding that it was impossible to “know for sure” whether an inmate on the gurney is in pain or not. Official prison documents released to Wood’s legal team on Friday indicate that he was injected with midazolam and hydromorphone 15 times. The state’s protocol gives the prisons director a degree of flexibility in how the execution may proceed, but only explicitly allows for “an additional dose” of the chemicals that can be administered “if deemed appropriate” after consciousness checks are performed three minutes into the procedure. “The Arizona execution protocol explicitly states that a prisoner will be executed using 50mg of hydromorphone and 50mg of midazolam,” Dale Baich, one of Wood’s attorneys, said in a statement. Underlining the wide variations between states, Florida’s protocol calls for 500mg of midazolam as part of a three-drug combination. “The execution logs released today by the Arizona Department of Corrections shows that the experimental drug protocol did not work as promised,” Baich said. “Instead of the one dose as required under the protocol, ADC injected 15 separate doses of the drug combination, resulting in the most prolonged execution in recent memory. “This is why an independent investigation by a non-governmental authority is necessary.” Anti-death penalty campaigners protest outside the prison in Florence, Arizona, where Joseph Wood was executed. Photograph: AP The documents show that the first syringe of midazolam and hydromorphone was administered at 1.53pm local time. Four minutes later, the “IV team leader” verified that Wood was sedated, according to the log, but he was not pronounced dead until 3.49pm. In between, some witnesses said they saw him gulp and gasp more than 600 times. The procedure took so long that Wood’s lawyers were able to file a court motion for an emergency stay of execution. The telephone hearing with a federal judge lasted for half an hour. Wood’s lawyers asked the judge to call a halt to the execution and order Arizona officials to resuscitate the prisoner, but he died before the judge could make a ruling. Friday’s documents show that a second syringe of 50mg of midazolam and 50mg of hydromorphone was injected at 2.09pm, and a third only four minutes later. “Inmate remains sedated,” the log noted at 2.24pm. By 3.09pm, the “tenth drug protocol” was complete. At 3.30pm, the log simply stated, “inmate remains sedated”. Finally, after the 15th drug protocol was completed at 3.46pm, a prison official wrote, three minutes later: “IV team leader pronounced death”. There were no more entries. Best wishes Nils (Source The Guardian)
|
|
|
Post by brittney on Aug 4, 2014 11:13:15 GMT -6
I bet there are people that are okay with that...lol. I bet their attitudes would change if that was a young hot woman on the gurney.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2014 17:26:30 GMT -6
I bet there are people that are okay with that...lol. I bet their attitudes would change if that was a young hot woman on the gurney. You are nothing but a broken record. Why in the he ll would anyone care if it was a young hot woman on the gurney? FFS, any woman that murdered and in such a way it would be considered 1st degree and get sentenced to death. Would have to do so after 18 years of age and the trial might take a year or two to get finished and then the sentencing phase, all of the appeals and the phony crap that so many pull to try to get off that would add a few decades. IOW, your hot young woman would be a middle aged, hardened prison hag. Think anyone would give a crap then??? Absolutely NOT.
|
|
|
Post by john - uk on Aug 10, 2014 4:24:38 GMT -6
I bet there are people that are okay with that...lol. I bet their attitudes would change if that was a young hot woman on the gurney. My only concern is that instances like this add fuel to the anti DP BS about how lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment. Wood is dead, job done. NEXT!
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Aug 12, 2014 12:45:36 GMT -6
As Joseph Wood lay on the gurney in Arizona’s death chamber, gasping and gulping, prison officials kept pumping execution drugs into the convicted killer’s system. By the time Wood died, after nearly two hours, he had been injected with 750mg each of midazolam and hydromorphone: 15 times the amounts called for in the state’s execution protocol. Nils, what happened was in clear violation of the United States Constitution and shouldn’t have happened and there is no excuse for it. Therefore, be advised that while I am not against capital punishment per se, I am against those executions that are needlessly painful and thus unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Aug 12, 2014 13:56:31 GMT -6
I bet there are people that are okay with that...lol. I bet their attitudes would change if that was a young hot woman on the gurney. and I bet that it would never have taken fifteen 30-30 rounds. time honored, effective, and you can get the "drugs" at walmart. I'll never understand why we complicate the simple.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2014 21:10:09 GMT -6
Britney, is that you Timeranda? you sure sound familiar
|
|
|
Post by Tracy on Sept 21, 2014 19:25:35 GMT -6
I bet there are people that are okay with that...lol. I bet their attitudes would change if that was a young hot woman on the gurney. Creepy
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Oct 16, 2014 16:16:55 GMT -6
I would hardly say he suffered since he slept through the whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Oct 22, 2014 22:45:23 GMT -6
Nils you make it sound like he was bopped on the head 15 times with a hammer LOL Oh that would be my way of ending the lives of these clowns. A good hammer or bat.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Oct 23, 2014 19:43:23 GMT -6
I would hardly say he suffered since he slept through the whole thing. But maybe he had a bad dream. Too bad his victims couldn't have slept through his crimes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2014 11:15:35 GMT -6
Can someone point me to an article describing just how this man suffered on the gurney? Did he sit up and scream through each of the 15 doses? No? Then what is your point, nils?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2014 18:10:02 GMT -6
Can someone point me to an article describing just how this man suffered on the gurney? Did he sit up and scream through each of the 15 doses? No? Then what is your point, nils? I'm waiting, nils. What is your point?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 1, 2015 19:37:29 GMT -6
Can someone point me to an article describing just how this man suffered on the gurney? Did he sit up and scream through each of the 15 doses? No? Then what is your point, nils? The point is that there is no knowing whether or not he suffered, hence no knowing whether or not the procedure is constitutional.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 20:04:27 GMT -6
Can someone point me to an article describing just how this man suffered on the gurney? Did he sit up and scream through each of the 15 doses? No? Then what is your point, nils? The point is that there is no knowing whether or not he suffered, hence no knowing whether or not the procedure is constitutional. No knowing whether or not he suffered under an overdose of hydromorphone? Ok. You win. It isn't possible to debate with someone who makes statements like that.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 1, 2015 20:08:17 GMT -6
The point is that there is no knowing whether or not he suffered, hence no knowing whether or not the procedure is constitutional. No knowing whether or not he suffered under an overdose of hydromorphone? Ok. You win. It isn't possible to debate with someone who makes statements like that. I find it hard to believe if your on an overdose of hydromorphone.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2015 0:55:04 GMT -6
The point is that there is no knowing whether or not he suffered, hence no knowing whether or not the procedure is constitutional. No knowing whether or not he suffered under an overdose of hydromorphone? Ok. You win. It isn't possible to debate with someone who makes statements like that. It was David Waisel, the associate professor of anaesthesia in Boston quoted in Nils's article, who said that "it was impossible to “know for sure” whether an inmate on the gurney is in pain or not". I wasn't saying that. I was just clarifying what HE said. Right now I don't know which of you to believe. It would help me if you told me your qualifications in anesthesiology, so that I can compare them with Waisel's.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 2, 2015 10:16:13 GMT -6
No knowing whether or not he suffered under an overdose of hydromorphone? Ok. You win. It isn't possible to debate with someone who makes statements like that. It was David Waisel, the associate professor of anaesthesia in Boston quoted in Nils's article, who said that "it was impossible to “know for sure” whether an inmate on the gurney is in pain or not". I wasn't saying that. I was just clarifying what HE said. Right now I don't know which of you to believe. It would help me if you told me your qualifications in anesthesiology, so that I can compare them with Waisel's. We do know he was on an "overdose" to the extreme. Fact Ms Brown who attended the execution stated" You "don't know" what excruciating is' Excruciating is seeing your Dad lying in a pool of blood. Cold hard facts without the aid of drugs for her to live with for a lifetime. It is impossible" to know "..
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 2, 2015 10:34:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jan 2, 2015 12:04:28 GMT -6
The point is that there is no knowing whether or not he suffered, hence no knowing whether or not the procedure is constitutional That assertion does not establish the presence of cruelty, therefore the execution was constitutional.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2015 13:39:45 GMT -6
Ms Brown who attended the execution stated" You "don't know" what excruciating is' Excruciating is seeing your Dad lying in a pool of blood. Cold hard facts without the aid of drugs for her to live with for a lifetime. It is impossible" to know ".. We can agree that Ms Brown's pain is far worse. That doesn't mean every lesser pain is constitutional.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2015 13:42:16 GMT -6
You're very persuasive. But how am I to compare your certainty with the agnosticism of an established professor of anesthesiology? I'm worried that he understands the situation better than you, even though you're a smart bear.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2015 13:47:30 GMT -6
The point is that there is no knowing whether or not he suffered, hence no knowing whether or not the procedure is constitutional That assertion does not establish the presence of cruelty, therefore the execution was constitutional. It doesn't establish things either way, so the question of constitutionality remains open.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 2, 2015 14:03:40 GMT -6
You're very persuasive. But how am I to compare your certainty with the agnosticism of an established professor of anesthesiology? I'm worried that he understands the situation better than you, even though you're a smart bear. Do you live in this world or not? Do you see how drug addicks feel no pain, do you see how those put under for surgery feel no pain, do you see how many people are on pain pills to relieve pain, & they are to relieve pain . I feel certain he felt no pain his body only was having spasms, twtching & he mentally was not aware. There was no intent to prolong or to torture. If you still believe he felt pain mentally than we should go to the firing squad method.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2015 14:07:56 GMT -6
You're very persuasive. But how am I to compare your certainty with the agnosticism of an established professor of anesthesiology? I'm worried that he understands the situation better than you, even though you're a smart bear. Do you live in this world or not? Is this the world where we defer to scientific experts when it comes to these matters? If so then yes, that's the one I'm from.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 2, 2015 14:09:34 GMT -6
Ms Brown who attended the execution stated" You "don't know" what excruciating is' Excruciating is seeing your Dad lying in a pool of blood. Cold hard facts without the aid of drugs for her to live with for a lifetime. It is impossible" to know ".. We can agree that Ms Brown's pain is far worse. That doesn't mean every lesser pain is constitutional. How do you personally believe our constitution reads, about lesser pain or other?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2015 14:26:01 GMT -6
We can agree that Ms Brown's pain is far worse. That doesn't mean every lesser pain is constitutional. How do you personally believe our constitution reads, about lesser pain or other? It says "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 2, 2015 14:40:03 GMT -6
How do you personally believe our constitution reads, about lesser pain or other? It says "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." That's taxation & fines, what about cold blooded murder? Define cruel & unusual punishments? Then for who?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2015 15:08:53 GMT -6
It says "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Define cruel & unusual punishments? Then for who? Whatever the right definition is, it's clear that if death by sodium pentathol is both painless and historically standard, then the use of a different drug that causes great suffering is both cruel and unusual.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2015 15:20:29 GMT -6
It says "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." That's taxation & fines, what about cold blooded murder? The amendment has nothing to do with taxation.
|
|