|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 2, 2015 15:36:48 GMT -6
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. Whatever the right definition is? Ok you do not know. Why do we use a different drug? Why do we NOT want to say in the U.S, where new execution drugs come from? Could it be for the same reason "agenda's " will go so far as to bomb clinics or murder those medical people who do abortions? Murder is becoming acceptable, not for murderer's though. Babies, yes Ooops, forgot human fetus is not a human child, has not shown himself to the world so not protected by the constitution. Nor as those already murdered by an unnlawful criminal act, to late for them too. Well, going by you than the firing squad is the method proven to be painless & fast on that point. As far as the constitution It's orginal frame has become water logged, infested with beatles, mildew by expansionist, leaching into the fabric of the frame . In another word's it is a derailed train. What is happening today is exactly what our Founding Fathers feared. As for civic's unfortunately it is no longer taught by commie teacher's, unions, & Government Expansionist
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 2, 2015 15:47:55 GMT -6
That's taxation & fines, what about cold blooded murder? The amendment has nothing to do with taxation. Oh what about those who cannot bond out at all, agains't the constitution too?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2015 15:52:39 GMT -6
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. Whatever the right definition is? Ok you do not know. Why do we use a different drug? Why do we NOT want to say in the U.S, where new execution drugs come from? Could it be for the same reason "agenda's " will go so far as to bomb clinics or murder those medical people who do abortions? Murder is becoming acceptable, not for murderer's though. Babies, yes Ooops, forgot human fetus is not a human child, has not shown himself to the world so not protected by the constitution. Nor as those already murdered by an unnlawful criminal act, to late for them too. Well, going by you than the firing squad is the method proven to be painless & fast on that point. As far as the constitution It's orginal frame has become water logged, infested with beatles, mildew by expansionist, leaching into the fabric of the frame . In another word's it is a derailed train. What is happening today is exactly what our Founding Fathers feared. As for civic's unfortunately it is no longer taught by commie teacher's, unions, & Government Expansionist You're on a free-associating right-wing tirade, riffing on abortion, constitutional interpretation, reds under the bed, etc. I can't be sidelined into all of these topics. Pick one point and run with it. If it's relevant to the thread I'll answer.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2015 15:53:47 GMT -6
The amendment has nothing to do with taxation. Oh what about those who cannot bond out at all, agains't the constitution too? Just to be clear, are you now arguing that bail bonds are something to do with tax?
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jan 2, 2015 16:28:08 GMT -6
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. When and where has such a drug been used? What was that drug?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 2, 2015 16:32:32 GMT -6
Whatever the right definition is? Ok you do not know. Why do we use a different drug? Why do we NOT want to say in the U.S, where new execution drugs come from? Could it be for the same reason "agenda's " will go so far as to bomb clinics or murder those medical people who do abortions? Murder is becoming acceptable, not for murderer's though. Babies, yes Ooops, forgot human fetus is not a human child, has not shown himself to the world so not protected by the constitution. Nor as those already murdered by an unnlawful criminal act, to late for them too. Well, going by you than the firing squad is the method proven to be painless & fast on that point. As far as the constitution It's orginal frame has become water logged, infested with beatles, mildew by expansionist, leaching into the fabric of the frame . In another word's it is a derailed train. What is happening today is exactly what our Founding Fathers feared. As for civic's unfortunately it is no longer taught by commie teacher's, unions, & Government Expansionist You're on a free-associating right-wing tirade, riffing on abortion, constitutional interpretation, reds under the bed, etc. I can't be sidelined into all of these topics. Pick one point and run with it. If it's relevant to the thread I'll answer. It is relevant to this. Your using the constitution, so here is the constitution what is was intended for verses what it has become. Again, Define cruel & unsual Punishment per the constitution's meaning? Where in the constitution directly does it apply to the DP, or even abortion? Abortion can be found in the oath for the medical , never do harm.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2015 16:37:11 GMT -6
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. When and where has such a drug been used? What was that drug? In the article that heads this thread, the new "experimental" drug was a cocktail of midazolam and hydromorphone.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2015 16:40:09 GMT -6
You're on a free-associating right-wing tirade, riffing on abortion, constitutional interpretation, reds under the bed, etc. I can't be sidelined into all of these topics. Pick one point and run with it. If it's relevant to the thread I'll answer. It is relevant to this. Your using the constitution, so here is the constitution what is was intended for verses what it has become. Again, Define cruel & unsual Punishment per the constitution's meaning? Where in the constitution directly does it apply to the DP, or even abortion? Abortion can be found in the oath for the medical , never do harm. We aren't talking about abortion Smart Bear. I have made no claims as to whether abortion is constitutional or not. The eighth amendment restricts government imposed punishments in general so that they may not be cruel and unusual. I see no real benefit to arguing over our differing interpretations of "cruel", "and" and "unusual" here. We can agree that, whatever they mean, the question of whether a drug causes undue and unusual suffering is relevant to whether it is constitutional.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jan 2, 2015 16:49:28 GMT -6
In the article that heads this thread, the new "experimental" drug was a cocktail of midazolam and hydromorphone A sedative and a painkiller. What evidence do you have that either or both cause "great suffering"? The article, written by a death penalty opponent, provided no such evidence.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 2, 2015 16:54:27 GMT -6
It is relevant to this. Your using the constitution, so here is the constitution what is was intended for verses what it has become. Again, Define cruel & unsual Punishment per the constitution's meaning? Where in the constitution directly does it apply to the DP, or even abortion? Abortion can be found in the oath for the medical , never do harm. We aren't talking about abortion Smart Bear. I have made no claims as to whether abortion is constitutional or not. The eighth amendment restricts government imposed punishments in general so that they may not be cruel and unusual. I see no real benefit to arguing over our differing interpretations of "cruel", "and" and "unusual" here. We can agree that, whatever they mean, the question of whether a drug causes undue and unusual suffering is relevant to whether it is constitutional. But, even your one" professional does not know if he felt pain, unknown remember. So, moot point to begin with. So, how was it unconstitutional. Whats left to go on? Opinions life exeperiences to try to know is all that is left. Since the Pope was brought into this too, he is going on blind faith. Does he have facts of afterlife or how painful it is to die even naturally? Fact being raped or murdered by a madman, we all know for a fact" that is cruel & unusual pain & torture intending to cause & inflict as brutally as they wish or length of time suffered, that is not an unknown by any "human" or professional.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2015 17:02:06 GMT -6
In the article that heads this thread, the new "experimental" drug was a cocktail of midazolam and hydromorphone A sedative and a painkiller. What evidence do you have that either or both cause "great suffering"? The article, written by a death penalty opponent, provided no such evidence. I see no evidence that the article was written by a death penalty opponent. Where did you get that?
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jan 2, 2015 17:06:32 GMT -6
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. How could Dr. Waisel "'know for sure" that a person sedated with Midazolam is in pain or not? If he truly doesn't know, then why hasn't he called for the elimination of the use the drug for sedation? A well-qualified person can be quite good at telling lies or making misleading statements.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jan 2, 2015 17:08:48 GMT -6
I see no evidence that the article was written by a death penalty opponent. Where did you get that The entire context of the article demonstrated the author's opposition to the death penalty. There are very few "news" writers who are not opposed to the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2015 17:16:49 GMT -6
But, even your one" professional does not know if he felt pain, unknown remember. So, moot point to begin with. So, how was it unconstitutional. Because the matter is unsettled, the question of whether it is constitutional is open. People's life experiences aren't a good guide to how a cocktail of chemicals will react. Just because you mix a sedative with a painkiller doesn't mean you get an anesthetic. By that logic, since hydrogen is a breathable gas that encourages burning, and oxygen is a breathable gas that encourages burning, when you put the two together you must get a breathable gas that encourages burning. But in fact you get water. My advice: If you want to know whether you suppress pain and suffering when you administer midazolam and hydromorphone, and the professor of anesthesiology says that nobody can be sure, believe him, not your "life experience", and certainly not random people from the internet. Wrong thread.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2015 17:24:29 GMT -6
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. How could Dr. Waisel "'know for sure" that a person sedated with Midazolam is in pain or not? If he truly doesn't know, then why hasn't he called for the elimination of the use the drug for sedation? I'm not qualified to speculate on how he is forming that opinion. I would be careful, though, before suggesting that he is deliberately abusing his professional credentials to mislead the public. I'm not a lawyer, but that strikes me as libel. If he feels that you are tarnishing his professional reputation that could expose you and the board to legal repercussions.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2015 17:24:54 GMT -6
I see no evidence that the article was written by a death penalty opponent. Where did you get that The entire context of the article demonstrated the author's opposition to the death penalty. There are very few "news" writers who are not opposed to the death penalty. So no evidence whatsoever, in other words.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 2, 2015 18:00:03 GMT -6
When and where has such a drug been used? What was that drug? In the article that heads this thread, the new "experimental" drug was a cocktail of midazolam and hydromorphone. Medazolam & hydromorphone is used ny some individuals a carefully monitored control drug mix. Never given to the extreme to know how the effects would be, surely would die though.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2015 18:05:16 GMT -6
In the article that heads this thread, the new "experimental" drug was a cocktail of midazolam and hydromorphone. Medazolam & hydromorphone is used ny some individuals a carefully monitored control drug mix. Never given to the extreme to know how the effects would be, surely would die though. The question is whether, when that cocktail is given in such huge doses as to be lethal, it causes suffering. The fact that it acts as an anesthetic in small doses does not tell us how it acts in large doses.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 2, 2015 18:07:45 GMT -6
Medazolam & hydromorphone is used ny some individuals a carefully monitored control drug mix. Never given to the extreme to know how the effects would be, surely would die though. The question is whether, when that cocktail is given in such huge doses as to be lethal, it causes suffering. The fact that it acts as an anesthetic in small doses does not tell us how it acts in large doses. Agree, it was given 15 times, "but" it was 50mg not 500mg which it should have been too.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2015 19:15:30 GMT -6
The question is whether, when that cocktail is given in such huge doses as to be lethal, it causes suffering. The fact that it acts as an anesthetic in small doses does not tell us how it acts in large doses. Agree, it was given 15 times, "but" it was 50mg not 500mg which it should have been too. That's not the issue. On the one hand, in the context of a hospital, it is given in small, controlled doses, by highly trained medical staff, taking account of the patient's height, weight, gender, health history, allergies and drug sensitivities, all while sensors attached to the patient monitor heart rate and other responses, with the trained professionals controlling the dose in response to these measures. In this context, we have a wealth of data about how it affects patients, including reports after the fact from the patients themselves. Contrast this with some cuckoo at the penitentiary applying a bunch of stuff that, they guesstimate, ought to kill a man if you prescribe enough of it, then, when he starts gasping and choking and going into adrenaline shock, just doubling the dose, tripling it, quadrupling it, … 15-timesing it until the guy finally stays down. The former procedure is called "medicine". The latter is called "assclownery". If you want to argue that the creep has it coming, that's one thing. But don't pretend to me that you think (or care) that it is humane.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jan 2, 2015 19:34:12 GMT -6
The entire context of the article demonstrated the author's opposition to the death penalty. There are very few "news" writers who are not opposed to the death penalty. So no evidence whatsoever, in other words. I have been involved in evaluating and discussing the death penalty for more than 50 years and have been active on one side of the issue or the other for most of that time. That experience enables me to recognize BS and bias, expecially when it is the norm and obvious
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2015 19:37:53 GMT -6
So no evidence whatsoever, in other words. I have been involved in evaluating and discussing the death penalty for more than 50 years and have been active on one side of the issue or the other for most of that time. That experience enables me to recognize BS and bias, expecially when it is the norm and obvious That may bring you a great deal of solipsistic satisfaction, but it's not much use for persuading your opponent in a debate.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jan 2, 2015 19:41:58 GMT -6
Agree, it was given 15 times, "but" it was 50mg not 500mg which it should have been too. That's not the issue. On the one hand, in the context of a hospital, it is given in small, controlled doses, by highly trained medical staff, taking account of the patient's height, weight, gender, health history, allergies and drug sensitivities, all while sensors attached to the patient monitor heart rate and other responses, with the trained professionals controlling the dose in response to these measures. In this context, we have a wealth of data about how it affects patients, including reports after the fact from the patients themselves. Contrast this with some cuckoo at the penitentiary applying a bunch of stuff that, they guesstimate, ought to kill a man if you prescribe enough of it, then, when he starts gasping and choking and going into adrenaline shock, just doubling the dose, tripling it, quadrupling it, … 15-timesing it until the guy finally stays down. The former procedure is called "medicine". The latter is called "assclownery". If you want to argue that the creep has it coming, that's one thing. But don't pretend to me that you think (or care) that it is humane. No pretending is involved. There is no evidence that he was not sedated or that he suffered even the slightest pain. As for "medicine", those professionals manage to unintentionally kill about 100,000 Americans every year and cause much larger amounts of suffering. If you haven't already done so, I suggest you observe someone die of brain or lung cancer. There are also cases where those professionals have closely monitored giving people ten to 100 times the amount of radiation intended for treatment. Of course there are more cases of incorrect drug dosages or incorrect drugs being administered, not to mention cutting off the wrong limb. Thousands of those cases make the execution look like a pleasant walk in the park. The guy stayed down and never got up. You should stop making things up.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 2, 2015 19:43:20 GMT -6
Agree, it was given 15 times, "but" it was 50mg not 500mg which it should have been too. That's not the issue. On the one hand, in the context of a hospital, it is given in small, controlled doses, by highly trained medical staff, taking account of the patient's height, weight, gender, health history, allergies and drug sensitivities, all while sensors attached to the patient monitor heart rate and other responses, with the trained professionals controlling the dose in response to these measures. In this context, we have a wealth of data about how it affects patients, including reports after the fact from the patients themselves. Contrast this with some cuckoo at the penitentiary applying a bunch of stuff that, they guesstimate, ought to kill a man if you prescribe enough of it, then, when he starts gasping and choking and going into adrenaline shock, just doubling the dose, tripling it, quadrupling it, … 15-timesing it until the guy finally stays down. The former procedure is called "medicine". The latter is called "assclownery". If you want to argue that the creep has it coming, that's one thing. But don't pretend to me that you think (or care) that it is humane. Where did I argue/state the creep had it coming?. And I am not now. Where the heck did that come from? I was not arguing with you either, you would certainly know if I was. I have a right to my thoughts, so back to topic now. I wonder if being a low dose 50mg administered "many times" is what took 2 hrs verses the right amount at 500mg one hit? Would have had a fast result of only minutes? Do not tell me I am pretending I care, on whats humane. Where did you get that professional information from for your facts about me, or things I never stated?
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jan 2, 2015 20:04:29 GMT -6
Just because you mix a sedative with a painkiller doesn't mean you get an anesthetic. By that logic, since hydrogen is a breathable gas that encourages burning, and oxygen is a breathable gas that encourages burning, when you put the two together you must get a breathable gas that encourages burning. But in fact you get water Nice demonstration of ignorance. There are two ways to get water from water and hydrogen under normal circumstances: Fire or explosion. Of course, you have to have sufficient oxygen (normal atmosphere) and sufficient hydrogen (abnormal). But you will get a fire or explosion to get water.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jan 2, 2015 20:07:28 GMT -6
I have been involved in evaluating and discussing the death penalty for more than 50 years and have been active on one side of the issue or the other for most of that time. That experience enables me to recognize BS and bias, expecially when it is the norm and obvious That may bring you a great deal of solipsistic satisfaction, but it's not much use for persuading your opponent in a debate. Now you want to break my heart.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2015 20:17:48 GMT -6
No pretending is involved. There is no evidence that he was not sedated or that he suffered even the slightest pain. Point of clarification: We should focus not on pain, but on suffering. Inducing nausea, restricting breath, starving a prisoner, emotional abuse, sexual humiliation etc could all count towards a punishment being cruel whether or not they caused sensations of pain. With that in mind, the fact that Wood was observed to be gasping and gulping more than 600 times is evidence he was in distress. It's not a slam dunk proof, of course, but people don't normally gasp and gulp when properly anesthetized. The problem is that you think that since a drug causes sedation in normal doses, it does the same in high doses. It doesn't. If it's improperly applied it will cause the body to go into panic mode as vitals drop to dangerous levels, adrenaline will be released, and the patient will start to wake. Looks like Joseph Wood taught this lesson 15 times to the buttbrains in AZ correction, but they still didn't get it.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2015 20:25:32 GMT -6
Where did I argue/state the creep had it coming?. It's your general attitude. Don't forget I've been reading your posts for a long time, ever since your English became decipherable. Just recently, for example, you quoted someone saying that prisoners/antis don't know what excruciating means. Excruciating is having to live with the pain of having a loved one killed by a murderer, they said. I could tell that you felt the same way, and I have a lot of time and respect for that argument. But I'm just saying it sounds like "Who gives a *crap* if the creep has to suffer? Look what he did to others!" We're not quarreling Smart Bear because we like each other too much. I'm just encouraging you as a friend to get in touch with your true pro feelings. Come on, admit it to me. You WANT the jackass to suffer because THAT'S WHAT HE DESERVES. Right? Come on, give me something here.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2015 20:28:51 GMT -6
Just because you mix a sedative with a painkiller doesn't mean you get an anesthetic. By that logic, since hydrogen is a breathable gas that encourages burning, and oxygen is a breathable gas that encourages burning, when you put the two together you must get a breathable gas that encourages burning. But in fact you get water Nice demonstration of ignorance. There are two ways to get water from water and hydrogen under normal circumstances: Fire or explosion. Of course, you have to have sufficient oxygen (normal atmosphere) and sufficient hydrogen (abnormal). But you will get a fire or explosion to get water. The point I was making was that breathable gas + breathable gas does not necessarily make breathable gas. Ditto lots of other things. E.g. sedative plus sedative doesn't necessarily make sedative. You think you're adding something by saying that chemistry is complex. But that's precisely my point.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2015 20:33:56 GMT -6
That may bring you a great deal of solipsistic satisfaction, but it's not much use for persuading your opponent in a debate. Now you want to break my heart. Just saying. If you want to go off and persuade yourself of something, you can call what's BS and what isn't. If you want to talk to people on a web forum, though, you need to bring something that they can find persuasive. So give the forum some reason to accept that the journalist in the Guardian article isn't trustworthy.
|
|