Post by Anja Nieser on Oct 1, 2006 5:28:52 GMT -5
Sparring Over Lethal Injection in California----At a hearing on how
California inmates are executed, an expert says they might awaken during
the process and die painfully.
During the first day of a trial on the constitutionality of California's
lethal injection method of execution, an expert on pharmacology said the
drug used to anesthetize inmates wears off "extremely fast" and
potentially exposes prisoners to painful deaths.
"There is a possibility that inmates could emerge [from unconsciousness]
and experience a painful execution," Dr. William Ebling, who has done
extensive research on anesthetics, testified Tuesday in a San Jose federal
courtroom.
He called California's execution procedure a "one-size-fits-all" plan that
ignores the fact that drug dosages must be adjusted to a person's size,
health history and other factors.
Ebling was among several witnesses including several who had viewed
executions to portray lethal injection as fraught with uncertainty, a
process that appears to render some prisoners clearly unconscious before
death while others heave and convulse in what looks like agony.
The 4-day trial here is one of several court proceedings around the nation
in which lethal injection is under challenge as a violation of the U.S.
Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Executions have been
put on hold in California pending the outcome of the litigation, brought
by condemned inmate Michael Morales, who was sentenced to death for the
1981 murder of Terri Winchell, 17, in Lodi.
U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel stressed that condemned inmates are not
entitled under the Constitution to a painless death.
"This is not about whether it is appropriate or inappropriate for the
person being executed to suffer pain," he said. "It is inaccurate to say
that an execution has to be painless," but it cannot under the law
"inflict severe degrees of pain."
Like three dozen other states, California uses a 3-drug thingytail for
executions: sodium thiopental, a barbiturate anesthetic; pancuronium
bromide, which paralyzes the inmate; and potassium chloride, which causes
cardiac arrest. Critics say the anesthetic may fail, and thus the
paralytic would merely mask the intense pain the inmate experiences from
the heart-stopping chemical.
Senior Assistant Atty. Gen. Dane Gillette, lead lawyer for the state, said
his side would demonstrate that a new procedure that California adopted in
response to questions about the drug thingytail requiring a continuous
infusion of anesthetic rather than a one-time delivery would meet
constitutional standards. Gillette said the state would not concede that
the former procedure was unconstitutional but acknowledged a problem in
the execution last year of Stanley Tookie Williams, a gang leader and
murderer.
In that case, the execution team failed to insert a backup line for the
anesthetic a fact that Morales' lawyers uncovered in a deposition.
Gillette called the episode "a lesson well learned, one that will never
happen again."
John Grele, one of Morales' lawyers, said his side would present
"disturbing and frightening" information about how lethal-injection
executions have been conducted. He also asserted that California's new
procedure, adopted since Morales' execution was called off in February,
was drawn up hastily and primarily by lawyers not experts on the use of
the drugs.
"As a result, we have a protocol that, if it's going to effective, it will
be effective by chance alone," Grele said.
Ebling, the expert on pharmacology, said the anesthetic employed in
California was an older drug that was used in medical procedures to induce
anesthesia and typically was followed by other drugs to sustain
unconsciousness.
Fogel asked him if there was a 2nd drug that could be given intravenously
to ensure that an inmate did not regain consciousness. Ebling said he
could not answer the question with any certainty.
Asked by the judge whether it would be possible to kill someone just using
thiopental or another barbiturate, Ebling responded in the affirmative.
But, he quickly added, it would take longer perhaps 30 to 40 minutes and
he said "it's an ugly death," referring to how the inmate's respiratory
system would collapse.
Supervising Deputy Atty. Gen. Ron Mathias pointed out that
anesthesiologists treating patients not slated for death must wrangle with
how much of a drug to give to avoid pain while safeguarding them.
Executions are "not half as hard," Mathias said.
The state's new procedure for lethal injection requires that the
anesthetic be administered slowly over the course of the execution. Ebling
testified that doctors would never require that an anesthetic be
administered "slowly" because that has no meaning in science.
In fact, he said, "faster is better" as long as the other 2 drugs are also
given in rapid succession. He said a review of execution logs showed
different intervals between administration of the drugs in different
executions.
Ebling also said that a person experiencing high stress would be harder to
anesthetize than a calm patient and that severe pain could cause an inmate
to regain consciousness.
When repeatedly pressed for a formula that would keep an inmate
unconscious during an execution, Ebling grew exasperated: "We simply don't
do studies where they suffocate somebody and find out when they will wake
up."
Ebling's testimony followed statements by a veterinarian who said he would
not use the state's lethal-injection procedure on an animal because it
could "lead to pain and suffering."
An animal must be monitored during euthanasia, Dr. Kevin Concannon, a
veterinary anesthesiologist, testified. No doctor monitors an inmate
during an execution; medical ethics codes forbid participating in a
killing.
The lethal-injection procedure is particularly risky because the 2nd drug
would paralyze the animal, making it impossible to know if it was
suffering, Concannon said.
Deputy Atty. Gen. Mathias pointed out that an American Veterinary Medical
Assn. guide to euthanasia says its findings cannot be extrapolated to
humans. But Concannon said the "court would be doing a disservice" if it
did not take into account the research and developments in euthanasia on
animals.
Dr. Mark Heath, a Columbia University anesthesiologist who has testified
for condemned inmates in numerous challenges to lethal injection around
the country, said he was confident that a humane lethal injection
procedure could be designed. "I'm sure it can be," he said.
Asked by Ginger Anders, one of Morales' attorneys, if he knew of a good
protocol, Heath responded that "Missouri is heading in the right
direction," because a federal judge there insists that a doctor be present
to make sure the inmate is properly anesthetized before the lethal
potassium chloride is administered.
Heath testified that the revised California procedure has "many gratuitous
risks" of inflicting unnecessary pain and is worse than its predecessor.
Heath also asserted that the paralytic drug serves no useful function,
because it neither anesthetizes nor kills. Asked why it was utilized, he
said 2 expert witnesses who support its use said it "serves to stop
[agonizing] movements associated with death that would be disturbing to
witnesses."
(source: Los Angeles Times)
California inmates are executed, an expert says they might awaken during
the process and die painfully.
During the first day of a trial on the constitutionality of California's
lethal injection method of execution, an expert on pharmacology said the
drug used to anesthetize inmates wears off "extremely fast" and
potentially exposes prisoners to painful deaths.
"There is a possibility that inmates could emerge [from unconsciousness]
and experience a painful execution," Dr. William Ebling, who has done
extensive research on anesthetics, testified Tuesday in a San Jose federal
courtroom.
He called California's execution procedure a "one-size-fits-all" plan that
ignores the fact that drug dosages must be adjusted to a person's size,
health history and other factors.
Ebling was among several witnesses including several who had viewed
executions to portray lethal injection as fraught with uncertainty, a
process that appears to render some prisoners clearly unconscious before
death while others heave and convulse in what looks like agony.
The 4-day trial here is one of several court proceedings around the nation
in which lethal injection is under challenge as a violation of the U.S.
Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Executions have been
put on hold in California pending the outcome of the litigation, brought
by condemned inmate Michael Morales, who was sentenced to death for the
1981 murder of Terri Winchell, 17, in Lodi.
U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel stressed that condemned inmates are not
entitled under the Constitution to a painless death.
"This is not about whether it is appropriate or inappropriate for the
person being executed to suffer pain," he said. "It is inaccurate to say
that an execution has to be painless," but it cannot under the law
"inflict severe degrees of pain."
Like three dozen other states, California uses a 3-drug thingytail for
executions: sodium thiopental, a barbiturate anesthetic; pancuronium
bromide, which paralyzes the inmate; and potassium chloride, which causes
cardiac arrest. Critics say the anesthetic may fail, and thus the
paralytic would merely mask the intense pain the inmate experiences from
the heart-stopping chemical.
Senior Assistant Atty. Gen. Dane Gillette, lead lawyer for the state, said
his side would demonstrate that a new procedure that California adopted in
response to questions about the drug thingytail requiring a continuous
infusion of anesthetic rather than a one-time delivery would meet
constitutional standards. Gillette said the state would not concede that
the former procedure was unconstitutional but acknowledged a problem in
the execution last year of Stanley Tookie Williams, a gang leader and
murderer.
In that case, the execution team failed to insert a backup line for the
anesthetic a fact that Morales' lawyers uncovered in a deposition.
Gillette called the episode "a lesson well learned, one that will never
happen again."
John Grele, one of Morales' lawyers, said his side would present
"disturbing and frightening" information about how lethal-injection
executions have been conducted. He also asserted that California's new
procedure, adopted since Morales' execution was called off in February,
was drawn up hastily and primarily by lawyers not experts on the use of
the drugs.
"As a result, we have a protocol that, if it's going to effective, it will
be effective by chance alone," Grele said.
Ebling, the expert on pharmacology, said the anesthetic employed in
California was an older drug that was used in medical procedures to induce
anesthesia and typically was followed by other drugs to sustain
unconsciousness.
Fogel asked him if there was a 2nd drug that could be given intravenously
to ensure that an inmate did not regain consciousness. Ebling said he
could not answer the question with any certainty.
Asked by the judge whether it would be possible to kill someone just using
thiopental or another barbiturate, Ebling responded in the affirmative.
But, he quickly added, it would take longer perhaps 30 to 40 minutes and
he said "it's an ugly death," referring to how the inmate's respiratory
system would collapse.
Supervising Deputy Atty. Gen. Ron Mathias pointed out that
anesthesiologists treating patients not slated for death must wrangle with
how much of a drug to give to avoid pain while safeguarding them.
Executions are "not half as hard," Mathias said.
The state's new procedure for lethal injection requires that the
anesthetic be administered slowly over the course of the execution. Ebling
testified that doctors would never require that an anesthetic be
administered "slowly" because that has no meaning in science.
In fact, he said, "faster is better" as long as the other 2 drugs are also
given in rapid succession. He said a review of execution logs showed
different intervals between administration of the drugs in different
executions.
Ebling also said that a person experiencing high stress would be harder to
anesthetize than a calm patient and that severe pain could cause an inmate
to regain consciousness.
When repeatedly pressed for a formula that would keep an inmate
unconscious during an execution, Ebling grew exasperated: "We simply don't
do studies where they suffocate somebody and find out when they will wake
up."
Ebling's testimony followed statements by a veterinarian who said he would
not use the state's lethal-injection procedure on an animal because it
could "lead to pain and suffering."
An animal must be monitored during euthanasia, Dr. Kevin Concannon, a
veterinary anesthesiologist, testified. No doctor monitors an inmate
during an execution; medical ethics codes forbid participating in a
killing.
The lethal-injection procedure is particularly risky because the 2nd drug
would paralyze the animal, making it impossible to know if it was
suffering, Concannon said.
Deputy Atty. Gen. Mathias pointed out that an American Veterinary Medical
Assn. guide to euthanasia says its findings cannot be extrapolated to
humans. But Concannon said the "court would be doing a disservice" if it
did not take into account the research and developments in euthanasia on
animals.
Dr. Mark Heath, a Columbia University anesthesiologist who has testified
for condemned inmates in numerous challenges to lethal injection around
the country, said he was confident that a humane lethal injection
procedure could be designed. "I'm sure it can be," he said.
Asked by Ginger Anders, one of Morales' attorneys, if he knew of a good
protocol, Heath responded that "Missouri is heading in the right
direction," because a federal judge there insists that a doctor be present
to make sure the inmate is properly anesthetized before the lethal
potassium chloride is administered.
Heath testified that the revised California procedure has "many gratuitous
risks" of inflicting unnecessary pain and is worse than its predecessor.
Heath also asserted that the paralytic drug serves no useful function,
because it neither anesthetizes nor kills. Asked why it was utilized, he
said 2 expert witnesses who support its use said it "serves to stop
[agonizing] movements associated with death that would be disturbing to
witnesses."
(source: Los Angeles Times)