Pfizer blocks drugs from being used in lethal injections | Hacker News Reader

Pfizer blocks drugs from being used in lethal injections

edition.cnn.com

58 pointsTomte55 comments

The way we do lethal injection is weird and over-engineered anyway. They use three chemicals to do what we routinely do to dogs with one, and even then it could be done quite humanely with just a sealed room and a tank of nitrogen.

It's weird to discuss humanity when you're talking about taking someones life without their consent as an act of revenge.

Also it could be argued the guillotine is more humane since the death is instant. The chemical injections just feel "cleaner" since the executioners wearing a lab coat.

Death isn't instant when done with guillotine I think, rather you're alive and alert for 13 or so seconds

http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/thefrenchrevolution/a/dy...

There's also the whole bit where you know for a long time in advance that you're going to get your head hacked off by a machine versus just laying down and going to sleep.

No, chemical injections feel cleaner because they are. Chop someone's head off with a guillotine and see how much blood comes out of the body.

Another poster referenced Michael Portillo's documentary on the subject. He did extensive research into different methods of humane euthanasia, and landed where you did.

However, his conclusion after asking why it wasn't done that way is that people actually do want convicts to suffer.

Or carbon monoxide. Odorless, undetectable, the body thinks it's oxygen so there's no sense of being asphyxiated.

> Or carbon monoxide

You don't even need CO, any inert gas other than CO2 will do as long as you remove the oxygen (nitrogen is convenient as the atmosphere is already mostly nitrogen)

> the body thinks it's oxygen so there's no sense of being asphyxiated.

CO does compete with O2 which kills you, but the reason the body doesn't react is it basically doesn't react to anything other than CO2 blood levels. You can asphyxiate with argon, butane, nitrogen, helium, krypton, etc… and not realise it as long as CO2 partial pressure doesn't rise.

CO is dangerous because you don't need to remove the O2 from a room to be lethal.

All the other gases cause asphyxiation by taking the place of oxygen in the air. So once you leave the room, you'll be fine.

CO is dangerous because it takes the place of oxygen in the blood and it has a stronger attraction to hemoglobin than oxygen. So get enough CO in your blood and your organs suffocate, even if you are put in a pure O2 environment right away.

> CO is dangerous because you don't need to remove the O2 from a room to be lethal.

Which is relevant… how? The thread isn't about CO poisoning compared to other modes of asphyxiation.

Carbon monoxide isn't ideal as it causes headaches.

Don't need a sealed room either. A good sealing mask is more than enough - as is used in surgery.

Carbon dioxide is probably "better". There is an interesting (and I think rather controversial) BBC documentary on this presented by a former Conservative MP. I don't have a link to it, but you can search for "Michael Portillo How to kill a human being".

Carbon dioxide is terrible for this, blood CO2 (or blood acidity really) is what the body reacts to to decide it's suffocating, hypercapnia is a horrible thing to die from.

If morphine overdose can be used to euthanize, why can't it be used in death penalty executions?

Interesting discussion here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yaqa1/i...

Serious question, what would happen if in a room of nitrogen? Would you get the giggles, pass out, and eventually suffocate unconsciously?

The body notices "suffocation" through detecting carbon dioxide levels. Simply replacing oxygen with another inert gas (like nitrogen) does not trigger the suffocation response in the body and so you essentially just exhale all of your oxygen and go hypoxic. People react differently to hypoxia, some people just pass out while others get the giggles before they pass out. Then you die.

You would not even know it is happening most likely.

This is why confined spaces are so dangerous and governed so strictly by OSHA. A lot of times you will pass out within one or two breaths if you inhale something with very low oxygen levels (<15%) and then you die and anyone who follows you in to rescue you dies.

Or a few bullets.

It's not clear from the title, but this seems to apply to injections used for murder (capital punishment), not euthanasia.

I don't see any comments on the question of whether a commercial entity has legal standing to control the use of products it sells. A commercial entity relies on the legal system to enforce any restrictions, so this amounts to a question of whether the public should facilitate and subsidize the political wishes of a commercial entity. I think not, just as the taxpayers should not be subsidizing inadequate wages paid by companies like Walmart.

Export laws, being enacted and enforced by a government, are a different matter, of course.

I'm strongly opposed to the death penalty, for both moral and practical reasons. This story is another reminder for me on how the functions of government have been co-opted for private gain. This kind of thing makes everyone poorer.

The article is highly misleading in this respect. The restrictions are contractual and imposed upon Pfizer's distributors/resalers. State governments must also certify that purchases won't be used for executions. Likely the only consequence for violations is being blacklisted by Pfizer.

The original press release[1] states:

> Pfizer’s distribution restriction limits the sale of these seven products to a select group of wholesalers, distributors, and direct purchasers under the condition that they will not resell these products to correctional institutions for use in lethal injections. Government purchasing entities must certify that products they purchase or otherwise acquire are used only for medically prescribed patient care and not for any penal purposes. Pfizer further requires that these Government purchasers certify that the product is for “own use” and will not resell or otherwise provide the restricted products to any other party.

> Pfizer will consistently monitor the distribution of these seven products, act upon findings that reveal noncompliance, and modify policies when necessary to remain consistent with our stated position against the improper use of our products in lethal injections. Importantly, this distribution system is also designed to ensure that these critical medications will remain immediately available to those patients who rely on them every day.

[1]: http://www.pfizer.com/files/b2b/GlobalPolicyPaperLethalInjec...

Here's some more reading on the subject of the lethal injection drug shortage, including a per-state breakdown:

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/04/12/how-the-drug-s...

Slightly OT: out of curiosity, anyone knows what's being used for legal Euthanasia, e.g. in the Netherlands?

A barbiturate (a drug that acts as central nervous system depressant, i.e. sodium thiopental or propofol) in combination with a muscle relaxant. Death cause: oxygen deficiency, within seconds.

Source: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasie (dutch)

Minor correction propofol is not a barbiturate. They also tend to use longer acting barbiturates. Sodium thiopentol wears off after 10-15 minutes.

IIRC in Oregon it's pentobarbital or secobarbital. Source: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/742070_3.

Interesting. I wonder if this is revenge for DOT blocking the Allergan deal.

Good for Pfizer for showing some cajones.

> Good for Pfizer for showing some cajones.

Well, you could also view this from the opposite angle: if they didn't block this, how good would it look on them?

Also, I can't help but wonder what their stance would be if the "execution" market was much larger.

Anyway, I still applaud this move of course, that is not the point.

I imagined drug commercials for execution drugs.

Side effects include dizziness, headaches, vomiting, and on rare occasions, not-death.

This is just a continuation of Hospira's policy. Pfizer purchased Hospira a year or two back.

If you think about it from a PR move, it's a low risk move.

The Secretary of the Treasury is currently a Democrat. While I don't think he's taken a position on the death penalty, Democrats tend to be anti-capital punishment and this would be a pretty bizarre way to thumb your nose at a Democrat. Even Democrats who claim to be pro-death penalty would likely privately be happy about this.

Assuming the worst of people, that seems like a pretty good reason to do it: the democrats in office are happy because you're hindering death penalties, but they don't risk political backlash because they didn't order/do anything, Pfizer did.

This is the opposite of showing cajones. Manufacturers of these drugs have been sued because their drugs were used for executions. So this is a attempt to avoid liability.

Meta: How does this reach front page with 4 points?

It probably has to do with the speed of upvotes or percentage of upvotes per viewer. It pretty rapidly has gone to +17. There does seem to be some kind of "upvote recency" component to the algorithm. Older upvotes stories drift down and newer quickly upvoted stories drift up. I doubt there is a conspiracy (except for those employment posts that can't be replied to).

dang has noted they randomly push some stories into the bottom of the front page to give them a shot.

oh thank you! didn't know about this.

You could call it the "Sunday effect".

Why wouldn't you just call it the Saturday effect?

This happens routinely on weekdays too. Number of points is not indicative of something appearing on the frontpage. I don't know what is though, which makes me suspicious of hidden agendas.

The admins here do promote stories to the front page when they want it to get more views.

I wouldn't call it "hidden".

Views are calculated into front-paging? I thought I read somewhere that successful front-pagers have an increased weight to their posts being frontpaged.

And "rate of upvotes" matters a lot. So maybe these 3 upvotes were given within a second of each other.. ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com