You’d be surprised, some people’s veins are what a phlebotomist would call “rolly” and move when they attempt to insert the needle. someone else can probably explain better than me.
I’m a phlebotomist and this is correct, there’s also many other factors that can result in missing a vein, dehydration being the biggest factor and even just the size of the vein.
With me it even depends on the arm. I get my blood checked yearly and they always try the right arm first by default, and they’re always struggling to find a suitable vein near the surface. Then I offer them to try my left arm and it’s done within 10 seconds.
Medical ethics prevent actual medical professionals from participating in executions. So they make random prison employees do it. So it’s often botched.
Can you imagine the strain on a person to come to terms with facing your final moments and an execution. Then the trauma of being strapped to a table facing certain death, then having to go through 8 failed attempts to kill you. Then go back to a cell and come to terms with facing the ordeal all over again. America is fucked up.
I’m not saying that it was on purpose, but either way it’s a mock execution. What happened to just shooting people? That seems like a pretty solid solution.
Pumping the cell with carbon dioxide without the prisoner knowing when it was happening. They’d go to sleep (or stay asleep) and never wake up. Painless stress free death.
Shake a soda bottle when it’s somewhat empty and then open it and take a breathe.
It’s definitely something you’d notice, and most certainly not painless or stress free.
Euthanasia chambers use just nitrogen. The air is already 80% nitrogen, so breathing it is completely unnoticeable, you’ll just become hypoxic with the lack of oxygen.
But euthanasia is quite different from killing someone. Wanting to sleep off vs being forced to die, essentially.
The state shouldn’t do it, but if they are, they should be made to do it dirty and feel the consequences. Making an execution clean and easy is just find encourage lawmakers to put more people to death.
The governor should be forced to carry out the execution himself, give him incentive to pardon
Not only that but Idaho has some draconian abortion positions so I’m sure that at this point a lot of medical professionals have left the state. But yeah you’re right this does sort of go against the “do no harm” thingy doctors are always prattling on about.
Well, the type of drugs used for lethal injections can’t be done like vaccines and the technique needs a level of skill to actually get the vein. They obviously chose someone who was unskilled.
Yeah, prob better than nothing. But, I doubt many phlebotomists would be very excited about the prospect either, especially considering they don’t get paid very well to begin with. Something tells me the state isn’t paying a whole bunch of bonuses to people on the execution team.
Maybe this is an ignorant thing to say but it seems like it would fly in the face of the hippocratic oath. I imagine that's hard for a lot of people to square with what is considered a pretty important promise.
Good point on doctors - as for legality I wasn’t really saying that, I was speaking just to people’s personal values, hence the like about squaring it away with a promise line. IME doctors take the oath somewhat seriously. Asking them to use their knowledge to kill is a tall order.
It can really tricky to locate a vein on some people, especially if they are dehydrated (and this inmate might know this). A competent person with medical training and experience can always find a vein, but I would conjecture the prison system hires barely qualified folks for this job.
I think it violates their code of ethics and they might lose their license. I guess the prison could hire a doctor or nurse who already lost their license for other reasons.
As someone who’s been stuck several times before the person with medical training taps in the next person, who also needs several tries, it is not my experience that you can always find a vein (unless I’m just really unlucky and the hospital employs a lot of incompetent people). Sometimes a nurse can get blood out on the first try, but sometimes they’re sticking both arms and moving onto my hands and I end up with two arms covered in bruises the next day. Sometimes they go get a pediatric needle and that helps. Last time, we called in the “IV Team” who used an ultrasound to place my IV. Some of us just have difficult veins.
They don’t give these people any training. Sticking someone, especially if they have scarred veins or are dehydrated, is difficult. Doubly so if you have no idea what the fuck you’re doing
Went to the ER one time with severe sinus pain. Nurses spent 30 minutes trying to insert an iv. They used an ultrasound machine and everything. I was so fucking miserable, my mom begged them to just stop. All I needed was some steroids and to go home. I was probably dehydrated from being there, and I’m hard to stick anyway.
Poor health and maybe even dehydration of the prisoner to be executed can make veins inaccessible. It took a considerable number of sticks to get my IV in for a colonoscopy because the preparation left me dehydrated.
Doctors, by oath, cannot conduct lethal injections or assist in any executions. What this means is that these jobs are usually passed onto people with no medical background (because if you had a medical background, why the fuck would you be working for the justice system?). Could you find the proper vein to insert a LI line into? I couldn’t.
Some prisons do employ doctors. But they’re generally just treating prisoners, not helping with this kind of thing.
However it has been revealed at times that there’s been at least a handful of physicians who have helped with lethal injections. To be clear, every code of ethics, medical board, and every professional physician organization roundly condemns any participation in these. Some states like Georgia have specifically made laws preventing medical boards in their state from disciplining physicians who do so if it’s found out (as any medical board likely would try to do).
Often it is passed to people with no medial experience as you said, but there have been at least a handful of healthcare workers who have participated in them at times. How widespread it is isn’t super clear, as anyone involved for the most part has tried to keep it secret, and the prison system has no desire to reveal this either.
And I think it’s incredibly damaging to society and trust with health care workers as a whole to have these death penalty states trying to involve health care workers in this, even if only a tiny handful have actually done so. If they’re really intent on continuing this barbaric practice just make it a firing squad, leave medical workers out of it. I’d personally favor just getting rid of the death penalty altogether. Not worth it for so many reasons.
“ Creech, 73, has been in prison half a century, convicted of five murders in three states and suspected of several more. He was already serving a life term when he beat a fellow inmate, 22-year-old David Dale Jensen, to death in 1981 — the crime for which he was to be executed. “
I don’t think I’m better than you. I see you and realize how much our species needs to grow as a whole. We have a long way to go before we overcome the roots of our evolution. Until then, we’re still just obeying our biology instead of our minds. We are all on this together and until everyone moves on, we’re trapped in the past.
I just don’t see the point in keeping him around based on his record. There are some things to consider in the case that put Creech in line for execution like the report indicating that the roommate attacked him initially. They go into more detail here and explain why he meets the criteria for the death penalty even with that and other factors in mind. Long story short, it’s not worth betting innocent lives on his rehabilitation by letting him out until he’s carried out. What good will come from further delaying the inevitable?
To state the obvious, not everyone who is convicted of a crime is guilty and not all guilty convicts (including cases of homicide) deserve the death penalty. In this situation, guilt is clearly established and for the nothing my opinion is worth, I agree with what they’ve said in the link above about why execution is warranted. The claw hammer and woodchipper suggestions were flippant and absurd but once it’s decided and if processes to overturn that decision are fruitless, they should just set the date and get it done. More realistically, it’d be something like inert gas or an inhaled poison and would vary by state. Planning ahead seems pretty basic to me but I’m sure there are dense legal tomes out there explaining why they don’t do it.
And the way they determine "unusual" is by doing this absolutely ahistoric, arbitrary polling of current policy. They cherry pick whatever statistics serve the politics of the person writing the decision.
e.g., when ruling whether it was "unusual" to execute people with cogitative disabilities (Atkins v. Virginia), they did a tally of how many states allowed execution in these cases vs did not but deliberately omitted how many states do not allow ANY executions. Then concluded that slightly more states allow executions of the mentally unfit than don't even though it was absolutely incontestable fact that the vast majority of states did not allow this kind of execution.
Ignore that the ruling technically banned those executions... because it factually didn't, since it left it up to states to define cognitive disability however they pleased and the behavior of the kill-happy states was not affected by the ruling.
Here's what the segregationist William Rehnquist wrote, joined by Scalia and Thomas.
The Court pronounces the punishment cruel and unusual primarily because 18 States recently have passed laws limiting the death eligibility of certain defendants based on mental retardation alone, despite the fact that the laws of 19 other States besides Virginia continue to leave the question of proper punishment to the individuated consideration of sentencing judges or juries familiar with the particular offender and his or her crime
I agree with JUSTICE SCALIA, post, at 337-338 (dissenting opinion), that the Court's assessment of the current legislative judgment regarding the execution of defendants like petitioner more resembles a post hoc rationalization for the majority's subjectively preferred result rather than any objective effort to ascertain the content of an evolving standard of decency.
This was 2002. Do the math. Why is it, you suppose, that 18 + 19 didn't equal 50? Because the other 13 states do not allow the death penalty. So according to Scalia, the fact that 18 states have laws against execution convicts who are not mentally fit to stand trial and an additional 13 do not allow execution period is not enough to prove that the current "standard of decency" is not to execute in these cases. It's fucking asinine.
He also implies that the fact that the majority cited amicus briefs from European lawmakers, religious institutions, and scientific public opinion polls is somehow a demerit to their decision and not a valid way to determine what the current public sentiment is towards the issue.
It's a perfect case study in how the conservatives on the court operate. Have always operated. Will always operate. They just lie, cheat, steal, and do whatever they want. They sort of failed in this case, but if they could've gotten the votes they absolutely would've pushed this forward as part of the case law. It was an attempt to flatly fabricate
the execution of defendants like petitioner more resembles a post hoc rationalization for the majority's subjectively preferred result rather than any objective effort to ascertain the content of an evolving standard of decency.
When I was really sick and needed regular blood tests, I’d have some nurses take at least a half-dozen stabs at me before getting a usable vein. We’re talking both arms and then moving to the top of the hand.
It happens. I wouldn’t call it cruel or a form of punishment, as they weren’t purposely trying to make my life miserable.
It’s mildly annoying as the patient, and I’m sure a little embarrassing for the person with the needle.
Did you know it was going to kill you if it worked? Because that would be the cruel part. Imagine knowing, for days, maybe even months after your last appeal that you were going to die. You know the exact date and time. You know nothing you can do will stop it.
How did he know that would be the consequences of his actions when plenty of people have been sentenced to life in prison for similar actions? How did he know he wouldn’t be dealing with a hung jury? Unless he was able to predict the future, which he could not, suggesting he knew that ‘capital punishment by lethal injection’ would be the consequences of his actions is ridiculous. On top of that, he may literally not know the difference between right and wrong, something that is entirely possible. In which case, again, he would not have known the consequences of his actions.
And it’s not about his feelings. The law shouldn’t be sidestepped just because a crime is very bad. Otherwise, why not just let police kill people like him and avoid trial completely?
I’m not sure why you think this specific case should be an exception when it comes to whether or not a law is ethical or even legal based on the U.S. Constitution. Even if this specific guy wanted to die, many very clearly did not. Including the innocent people that have been executed.
Should whether or not something is legal be decided on a case-by-case basis or should the law apply equally for everyone? Because I would certainly say the latter.
Friend, I’m not saying I support capital punishment. No doubt that there have been innocent people put to death (often people of colour), and that would be a failing of the justice system. Even the idea of capital punishment makes me sick.
But in the context we find ourselves in, the way Creech has been treated couldn’t possibly have been more humane or compassionate. He’s already tried to kill himself, saying he does not want to be stuck in prison for the rest of his life.
How would you go about making this situation better for this murderer? Or the family of his victims?
Should whether or not something is legal be decided on a case-by-case basis or should the law apply equally for everyone? Because I would certainly say the latter.
Well, sentencing is done on a case-by-case basis. Which is why some people who commit especially brutal types of violent murders are given a harsher penalty vs someone who may have killed in the heat of the moment. This is probably as fair as you can get, since some crimes obviously shouldn’t get the same heavy had as others.
Sentencing is done within the limit of the law and, again this is not about him specifically.
You can’t sentence someone to die by a thousand cuts because that is cruel. Which violates the Constitution. Why is this not cruel? Because it’s faster?
Sentencing is done within the limit of the law and, again this is not about him specifically.
Right. And the limit of the law, in this case, is lethal injection.
You can’t sentence someone to die by a thousand cuts because that is cruel. Which violates the Constitution. Why is this not cruel? Because it’s faster?
I don’t make up the rules, man. But you still haven’t said what would be the ideal in this situation.
Let him spend the rest of his life in jail (something he did not want, and already tried to kill himself over), set him free, or “other”?
You’d still have to consider the victims in this decision, so I’m curious to know how you’d do it.
Right. And the limit of the law, in this case, is lethal injection.
Which is cruel. Even if he specifically wants it. For reasons I explain.
I don’t make up the rules, man. But you still haven’t said what would be the ideal in this situation.
The ideal would be to do what every other civilized country on the planet does and not execute people. Even Anders Breivik wasn’t executed and he killed 77 people, many of them children. And no one in Norway who had any real influence seriously discussed bringing back the death penalty just for him. Because it is cruel.
Even SCOTUS decided it was cruel and halted it until they reversed their decision.
There’s a reason why medical professionals do not assist with executions.
I hate to break it to you, but the article quite literally says that “medical team members” were responsible for assisting in getting the IV line into Creech.
Harvard also says that physicians do assist (SOURCE)
And even this cardiologist says it’s better that they do than not, even though he is against capital punishment.
It’s certainly a debated topic in the realm of ethics, no doubt, but it still happens.
But getting back to my question:
If medically assisted suicide is not cruel, and Creech requested that he wanted to die via lethal injection (medically assisted suicide, since it was at his request), where do we have a problem?
Add comment