Post by Anja Nieser on Oct 1, 2006 5:29:16 GMT -5
Lawyers use veterinarians in case against lethal injection
A veterinarian testified Tuesday he would not euthanize animals the same
way that California executes inmates.
The testimony from North Carolina veterinarian Kevin Concannon came during
the 1st day of federal court hearings weighing whether California's method
of lethal injection is unconstitutional amid concerns it causes inmates
too much pain.
"I would not use that protocol in veterinarian patients," Concannon
testified.
He said veterinarians often use different types of sedatives and other
drugs, and they normally forego a paralyzing agent that some say
California gives condemned inmates for the sole purpose of making the
inmate appear serene.
"The combination (of drugs) used and the manner in which they are given
can lead to pain and suffering in patients," he testified, using the term
"patients" to refer to animals.
Before the veterinarian's testimony, lawyers for a condemned inmate
challenging lethal injection told a judge that the state's method is
unconstitutionally cruel, and said the state must revamp its method of
killing death row inmates.
If the current execution method "is to be effective, it will be effective
by chance alone," defense attorney John Grele said at the start of a 4-day
hearing that will determine if the state can resume executions on the
nation's biggest death row.
U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel, who put the execution of Michael Morales
on hold in February, was hearing testimony from former prison wardens,
execution team members and medical professionals to determine if inmates
are dying in pain.
"The Constitution forbids punishments which inflict severe degrees of
pain, and the question in this case is whether California's lethal
injection protocol violates that constitutional prohibition," Fogel said.
The judge said he may demand alterations to the procedure, but left the
question of the death penalty's future to "Legislatures of various states
and the U.S. Supreme Court."
California began using lethal injection in 1996 after a federal judge
ruled the gas chamber was a cruel form of punishment.
Morales, 46, condemned for raping, torturing and murdering a 17-year-old
Stockton girl 25 years ago, was granted a reprieve by Fogel after defense
lawyers argued that drugs mask the severe pain inmates suffer during
execution.
That spawned a moratorium on executions in California, where 652 killers
await their fate on death row.
Executions also have been halted in Delaware, Missouri, New Jersey as
those states, too, face challenges to injection procedures. 37 of the 38
states with the death penalty punish by lethal injection.
While the U.S. Supreme Court has never declared any form of the death
penalty unconstitutional despite the pain it may cause, the outcome could
reverberate as inmates across the country mount challenges to lethal
injections.
Prosecutors said there was no evidence that executions in California
violate the U.S. Constitution.
Dane Gillette, the state's top death penalty prosecutor, said executions
are not a medical procedure.
"There is no requirement that the standards of medical care be applied,"
he said.
Prosecutors said the veterinarian was unqualified to address humans, and
noted that the American Veterinarian Medical Association sanctions blows
to the head and asphyxiation from gas as approved killing methods.
Judge Fogel, however, was interested in the veterinarian's testimony, even
asking: "How long would it take that hypothetical dog to die?"
Morales' defense team says the injection process can go awry if the
initial sedative does not work, before a paralyzing agent and finally a
heart-stopping drug are administered.
If improperly sedated by prison staffers who are not licensed medical
practitioners, a paralyzing agent that often makes the inmate appear
serene may cause internal burning pain, defense lawyers assert, citing a
2005 article in the British medical journal, the Lancet.
Fogel said he was concerned that six inmates executed were conscious
longer than they should have been. Medical logs showed some still were
breathing more than a minute after receiving the initial sedative.
William Ebling, a pharmacist and pharmaceutical consultant with Pharsight
Corp. in Mountain View, said during Tuesday's hearing that the state's
method could lead to "some individuals' painful executions."
Still, after reviewing execution medical logs, Ebling said he was unsure
whether any of the six experienced too much pain. "I can't tell from the
data," he said.
For Morales' scheduled execution in February, Fogel had ordered 2 licensed
anesthesiologists to be on hand to ensure Morales was unconscious. Or, he
said, the prison could use just a sedative, but it would have to be
injected by a licensed practitioner such as a doctor, nurse, dentist,
paramedic or other medical technicians.
But hours before Morales was to be executed, the anesthesiologists
withdrew, citing ethical concerns.
The prison then opted for the one-drug method, but couldn't find anybody
licensed who would perform the injection. A host of medical trade
organizations denounced licensed practitioners from participating in
state-sanctioned killings.
The case is Morales v. Tilton, 06-219.
(source: Associated Press)
A veterinarian testified Tuesday he would not euthanize animals the same
way that California executes inmates.
The testimony from North Carolina veterinarian Kevin Concannon came during
the 1st day of federal court hearings weighing whether California's method
of lethal injection is unconstitutional amid concerns it causes inmates
too much pain.
"I would not use that protocol in veterinarian patients," Concannon
testified.
He said veterinarians often use different types of sedatives and other
drugs, and they normally forego a paralyzing agent that some say
California gives condemned inmates for the sole purpose of making the
inmate appear serene.
"The combination (of drugs) used and the manner in which they are given
can lead to pain and suffering in patients," he testified, using the term
"patients" to refer to animals.
Before the veterinarian's testimony, lawyers for a condemned inmate
challenging lethal injection told a judge that the state's method is
unconstitutionally cruel, and said the state must revamp its method of
killing death row inmates.
If the current execution method "is to be effective, it will be effective
by chance alone," defense attorney John Grele said at the start of a 4-day
hearing that will determine if the state can resume executions on the
nation's biggest death row.
U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel, who put the execution of Michael Morales
on hold in February, was hearing testimony from former prison wardens,
execution team members and medical professionals to determine if inmates
are dying in pain.
"The Constitution forbids punishments which inflict severe degrees of
pain, and the question in this case is whether California's lethal
injection protocol violates that constitutional prohibition," Fogel said.
The judge said he may demand alterations to the procedure, but left the
question of the death penalty's future to "Legislatures of various states
and the U.S. Supreme Court."
California began using lethal injection in 1996 after a federal judge
ruled the gas chamber was a cruel form of punishment.
Morales, 46, condemned for raping, torturing and murdering a 17-year-old
Stockton girl 25 years ago, was granted a reprieve by Fogel after defense
lawyers argued that drugs mask the severe pain inmates suffer during
execution.
That spawned a moratorium on executions in California, where 652 killers
await their fate on death row.
Executions also have been halted in Delaware, Missouri, New Jersey as
those states, too, face challenges to injection procedures. 37 of the 38
states with the death penalty punish by lethal injection.
While the U.S. Supreme Court has never declared any form of the death
penalty unconstitutional despite the pain it may cause, the outcome could
reverberate as inmates across the country mount challenges to lethal
injections.
Prosecutors said there was no evidence that executions in California
violate the U.S. Constitution.
Dane Gillette, the state's top death penalty prosecutor, said executions
are not a medical procedure.
"There is no requirement that the standards of medical care be applied,"
he said.
Prosecutors said the veterinarian was unqualified to address humans, and
noted that the American Veterinarian Medical Association sanctions blows
to the head and asphyxiation from gas as approved killing methods.
Judge Fogel, however, was interested in the veterinarian's testimony, even
asking: "How long would it take that hypothetical dog to die?"
Morales' defense team says the injection process can go awry if the
initial sedative does not work, before a paralyzing agent and finally a
heart-stopping drug are administered.
If improperly sedated by prison staffers who are not licensed medical
practitioners, a paralyzing agent that often makes the inmate appear
serene may cause internal burning pain, defense lawyers assert, citing a
2005 article in the British medical journal, the Lancet.
Fogel said he was concerned that six inmates executed were conscious
longer than they should have been. Medical logs showed some still were
breathing more than a minute after receiving the initial sedative.
William Ebling, a pharmacist and pharmaceutical consultant with Pharsight
Corp. in Mountain View, said during Tuesday's hearing that the state's
method could lead to "some individuals' painful executions."
Still, after reviewing execution medical logs, Ebling said he was unsure
whether any of the six experienced too much pain. "I can't tell from the
data," he said.
For Morales' scheduled execution in February, Fogel had ordered 2 licensed
anesthesiologists to be on hand to ensure Morales was unconscious. Or, he
said, the prison could use just a sedative, but it would have to be
injected by a licensed practitioner such as a doctor, nurse, dentist,
paramedic or other medical technicians.
But hours before Morales was to be executed, the anesthesiologists
withdrew, citing ethical concerns.
The prison then opted for the one-drug method, but couldn't find anybody
licensed who would perform the injection. A host of medical trade
organizations denounced licensed practitioners from participating in
state-sanctioned killings.
The case is Morales v. Tilton, 06-219.
(source: Associated Press)