Post by Anja Nieser on Oct 1, 2006 5:56:11 GMT -5
Execution method assailed by doctor
An anesthesiologist suggested Wednesday that California's lethal injection
procedures are such a mess that there is no way to know if death row
inmates have suffered, the theme of his daylong testimony in the legal
challenge to the state's execution method.
"It'll forever be an unknown in California whether they've reliably
performed a humane execution,'' said Dr. Mark Heath, a New York
anesthesiologist and frequent expert witness for death row inmates around
the country.
Heath blasted virtually every aspect of California's lethal injection
procedure, from poor training of execution-team members to evidence of
foul-ups in past executions. In response to questions from lawyers and a
federal judge, Heath said some of the problems are "almost hard to
believe.''
Heath's testimony came in the second day of an unprecedented hearing
unfolding this week in federal court in San Jose, where U.S. District
Judge Jeremy Fogel is considering death row inmate Michael Morales'
challenge to California's use of lethal injection. Morales' lawsuit
maintains that the state's lethal injection method violates the
constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Morales, 46, is on death row for the 1981 rape and murder of a 17-year-old
Lodi girl. Fogel postponed the execution in February to consider the
lethal injection challenge, setting up the most thorough examination of an
issue that is being raised in death-penalty states around the country.
Fogel pressed Heath on Wednesday on whether there are alternatives that
California and other states have yet to try that may be more humane, such
as using just a sedative to put a prisoner to death.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Dane Gillette grilled Heath under
cross-examination, trying to portray him as a hired gun for death row
inmates intent on blocking executions in California and other states.
Gillette pointed out to Heath that this case is the 5th time this year he
has testified in a lethal injection challenge.
"You've found no state's lethal injection procedure to be satisfactory,''
Gillette said.
Based on logs kept from executions, Heath suggested there is evidence that
in some instances, execution-team members have failed to properly sedate
an inmate before administering the final and fatal doses of drugs.
California uses three drugs to execute an inmate: the 1st, sodium
thiopental, to render the inmate unconscious; the 2nd, pancurium bromide,
to paralyze the muscles and stop breathing; and the 3rd, potassium
chloride, to stop the heart.
Critics of lethal injection say that if an inmate is not fully unconscious
from the 1st drug, the 2nd drug can mask the excruciating pain of the 3rd
and fatal drug, potassium chloride. Morales' attorneys argue that the
state uses the 2nd drug only to make an execution more palatable for
onlookers because it keeps an inmate's body from jerking around.
2 experts testified earlier this week that they would not use pancurium
bromide to euthanize animals.
Heath pointed to a series of recent depositions taken of former San
Quentin execution-team members who acknowledged that they couldn't even
identify all three drugs used in executions, and in some instances hadn't
read the state's guidelines, known as Procedure 770, for executing
inmates.
In addition, Heath said execution-team members were not properly trained
to administer the sedatives, heightening the risk that prisoners may not
have been fully unconscious during executions. The state's system is so
sloppy, he testified, that officials can't even account for all the
sedatives checked out from San Quentin's pharmacy for executions.
For Morales' case, the testimony is geared to show that the state's
procedures are patched together without study, training or safeguards
during an execution. The lawsuit argues that such problems amount to a
constitutional violation because the state's system places an inmate at an
unnecessary risk of a painful execution.
Heath stressed repeatedly that having a doctor in the execution chamber to
monitor an inmate would be a key safeguard, but Gillette pointed to major
problems trying to recruit any physicians willing to do that. California
prison officials could not comply with Fogel's orders in February that
would have allowed the Morales execution to proceed if 2 anesthesiologists
were present. Missouri officials also recently were unable to find a
doctor to monitor an execution.
The American Medical Association says it is unethical for doctors to
participate in executions.
California lawyers insist the system does ensure that executions are
humane, and disputes any evidence that an inmate has suffered in
executions. The state is expected to produce its own expert to defend the
system later in the week.
(source: Mercury News)
An anesthesiologist suggested Wednesday that California's lethal injection
procedures are such a mess that there is no way to know if death row
inmates have suffered, the theme of his daylong testimony in the legal
challenge to the state's execution method.
"It'll forever be an unknown in California whether they've reliably
performed a humane execution,'' said Dr. Mark Heath, a New York
anesthesiologist and frequent expert witness for death row inmates around
the country.
Heath blasted virtually every aspect of California's lethal injection
procedure, from poor training of execution-team members to evidence of
foul-ups in past executions. In response to questions from lawyers and a
federal judge, Heath said some of the problems are "almost hard to
believe.''
Heath's testimony came in the second day of an unprecedented hearing
unfolding this week in federal court in San Jose, where U.S. District
Judge Jeremy Fogel is considering death row inmate Michael Morales'
challenge to California's use of lethal injection. Morales' lawsuit
maintains that the state's lethal injection method violates the
constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Morales, 46, is on death row for the 1981 rape and murder of a 17-year-old
Lodi girl. Fogel postponed the execution in February to consider the
lethal injection challenge, setting up the most thorough examination of an
issue that is being raised in death-penalty states around the country.
Fogel pressed Heath on Wednesday on whether there are alternatives that
California and other states have yet to try that may be more humane, such
as using just a sedative to put a prisoner to death.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Dane Gillette grilled Heath under
cross-examination, trying to portray him as a hired gun for death row
inmates intent on blocking executions in California and other states.
Gillette pointed out to Heath that this case is the 5th time this year he
has testified in a lethal injection challenge.
"You've found no state's lethal injection procedure to be satisfactory,''
Gillette said.
Based on logs kept from executions, Heath suggested there is evidence that
in some instances, execution-team members have failed to properly sedate
an inmate before administering the final and fatal doses of drugs.
California uses three drugs to execute an inmate: the 1st, sodium
thiopental, to render the inmate unconscious; the 2nd, pancurium bromide,
to paralyze the muscles and stop breathing; and the 3rd, potassium
chloride, to stop the heart.
Critics of lethal injection say that if an inmate is not fully unconscious
from the 1st drug, the 2nd drug can mask the excruciating pain of the 3rd
and fatal drug, potassium chloride. Morales' attorneys argue that the
state uses the 2nd drug only to make an execution more palatable for
onlookers because it keeps an inmate's body from jerking around.
2 experts testified earlier this week that they would not use pancurium
bromide to euthanize animals.
Heath pointed to a series of recent depositions taken of former San
Quentin execution-team members who acknowledged that they couldn't even
identify all three drugs used in executions, and in some instances hadn't
read the state's guidelines, known as Procedure 770, for executing
inmates.
In addition, Heath said execution-team members were not properly trained
to administer the sedatives, heightening the risk that prisoners may not
have been fully unconscious during executions. The state's system is so
sloppy, he testified, that officials can't even account for all the
sedatives checked out from San Quentin's pharmacy for executions.
For Morales' case, the testimony is geared to show that the state's
procedures are patched together without study, training or safeguards
during an execution. The lawsuit argues that such problems amount to a
constitutional violation because the state's system places an inmate at an
unnecessary risk of a painful execution.
Heath stressed repeatedly that having a doctor in the execution chamber to
monitor an inmate would be a key safeguard, but Gillette pointed to major
problems trying to recruit any physicians willing to do that. California
prison officials could not comply with Fogel's orders in February that
would have allowed the Morales execution to proceed if 2 anesthesiologists
were present. Missouri officials also recently were unable to find a
doctor to monitor an execution.
The American Medical Association says it is unethical for doctors to
participate in executions.
California lawyers insist the system does ensure that executions are
humane, and disputes any evidence that an inmate has suffered in
executions. The state is expected to produce its own expert to defend the
system later in the week.
(source: Mercury News)