Second Murderer's Execution Blocked - UNNECESSARILY

WASHINGTON - May 22, 2014 - PRLog -- WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 22, 2014): The U.S. Supreme Court has just blocked the execution of a condemned murderer because his veins might create problems for lethal injections, just as Oklahoma spared another murderer because of problems involved in injecting lethal drugs in an earlier botched execution, but both are completely unnecessary, argues public interest law professor John Banzhaf, because there is a simple solutions which avoids all the problems with death by injection.

        Virtually all of the problems associated with using drugs to execute convicted murderers occur because the drugs are being injected.  These many problems include finding a suitable vein, positioning the needle, making sure the catheter is properly located, being sure it doesn't come out, using a syringe, problems with tubing which may crimp or clog, etc.

        Problems also include finding people with medical training competent to start and maintain intravenous lines who are not prohibited from participating in executions by ethical and professional guidelines, locating sufficient quantities of injectable drugs now that many drug companies are trying to prevent them from being used in executions, and a federal judge who has barred the importation of most of those drugs because the FDA has not found them to be both safe and effective to kill people - an obvious contradiction for drugs used in executions, suggests Banzhaf.

        Fortunately, there appears to be a simple, easy, and inexpensive means to avoid most all  of these problems, including drug company restrictions on the sale of injectable drugs, expiration dates on injectable drugs now being faced in several states, and the so-called "botched executions" involving injecting lethal drugs cited by death penalty opponents – putting the condemned on the pill.

        Since most of the concerns of using drugs for capital punishment involve problems with injecting the drug, an obvious alternative probably meeting constitutional muster would be for states to simply use pills rather than injections to administer drugs such as barbiturates, which are readily available and whose lethal properties are well known and very clearly established.

        "Providing the condemned with barbiturate pills to cause a quick painless death does not require any trained (much less medical) personnel, and could avoid the many medical problems with injections, as well as restrictions and expiration dates on injectable drugs," suggests Banzhaf.

        Barbiturate pills are approved for certain medical uses, and are even covered by Medicare Part D.   So the common practice of prescribing drugs for "off-label use" - using a drug approved for one purpose to do something else - would seemingly permit states to use barbiturate pills in executions, says Banzhaf.

        Oregon's death with dignity program helps terminally ill  patients end their lives simply and painlessly by providing prescriptions for Seconal (a barbiturate) pills which the patient takes himself.

        "If this method is appropriate for  totally innocent elderly persons seeking death with dignity, it should be good enough for condemned murderers," argues Banzhaf, an FDA drug law expert.

        If the prisoner refuses to take the pills, or only pretends to swallow them, he can hardly complain about unconstitutional "cruel and unusual punishment" if the state thereafter has no choice but to use lethal injections with all the risks involved.   To paraphrase an old legal saying, he had the key to his own freedom from pain, says Banzhaf, who helped force the FDA to recognize nicotine as an addictive drug.

        Since only a few grams of certain barbiturates are necessary to cause death, and pills may be much harder for drug companies to restrict than liquid injectable drugs, the amount necessary to cause a quick and painless death might be administered in several easy-to-swallow pills.

        Concerns that the convict would fill his stomach with food to slow the absorption of the ingested drug aren’t valid because condemned prisoners are usually kept under constant watch at least 24 hours before the time of execution, and because any such ploy would likewise make the condemned himself responsible for any pain he might suffer if a subsequent drug-injection execution became necessary.

        Likewise, since oral administration takes somewhat longer for the drugs to reach the system than with injections, this method of capital punishment is much less likely to trigger the sudden reactions lethal injections have sometimes been said to cause.

        For example, in a recent execution in Arizona, a 63-year-old convicted killer reportedly shook for several seconds upon receiving a lethal injection of pentobarbital.

        In another execution in Ohio, the condemned man loudly gasped for air several times during his execution and took an unexpectedly long 25 minutes to finally die.  His dying utterance, “I feel my whole body burning,” was widely reported, and provided more ammunition for those opposed to the death penalty.

        Using well-known, more easily available pills rather than injections for executions might overcome any constitutional objections, avoid the major problems with lethal injections highlighted by death penalty opponents, eliminate the need for medically trained personnel (who often refuse on ethical and/or professional grounds) to participate in executions, and have many other advantages, suggests Banzhaf, who has not taken a public position on capital punishment.


JOHN F. BANZHAF III, B.S.E.E., J.D., Sc.D.
Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School,
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor,
Fellow, World Technology Network,
Founder, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
2000 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052, USA
(202) 994-7229 // (703) 527-8418
http://banzhaf.net/ @profbanzhaf