Both men argue in their legal case that the way they will be executed—by lethal injection—is unconstitutional according to the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

Baze and Bowling argue that the chemicals used in the injection process carries a risk of inflicting unnecessary pain on them during the process.

The Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) website discusses the case in more detail: http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Baze_v._Rees.

Under normal circumstances, if everything goes correctly, the three-drug injection can be administered without hurting the inmate unnecessarily so that he/she dies without undue pain. However, historically, the procedure is not always carried out correctly, and problems have occurred in the past.

In the procedure, which has been used for over thirty years, the inmate sentenced to death is injected with (1) sodium thiopental (better known as Sodium Pentothal®, a short-acting general anaesthetic that produces unconsciousness), (2) pancuronium bromide (a chemical compound [brand name Pavulon®] that is used as a muscle relaxant in order to paralyze muscles), and (3) potassium chloride (a metal halide composed of potassium (K) and chlorine (Cl) that is used to cause cardiac arrest, and eventual death).

The problems occur when the first drug does not work properly. Under this case, when the second drug is injected it produces—according to U.S. lawyer Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., who represents the two inmates—a “terrifying, conscious paralysis.”

Then, when the third drug is injected it produces an “excruciating burning pain as it courses through the veins.” [The Washington Post: “Lethal-Injection Ruling May Have to Wait”]

Three physicians—Gregory D. Curfman, Stephen Morrissey, and Jeffrey M. Drazen—have written the January 7, 2008 paper “Physicians and Execution” in The New England Journal of Medicine. They talk about their opinions about the Baze v. Rees case and their roles as physicians in executions.

They state: “We are concerned that, regardless of its decision in Baze v. Rees, the Court may include language in its opinion that will turn again to the medical profession to legitimize a form of lethal injection that, meeting an appropriate constitutional standard, will not be considered "cruel and unusual punishment." On the surface, lethal injection is a deceptively simple procedure, but its practical application has been fraught with numerous technical difficulties. Without the involvement of physicians and other medical professionals with special training in the use of anesthetic drugs and related agents, it is unlikely that lethal injection will ever meet a constitutional standard of decency. But do we as a society want the nation's physicians to do this? We believe not.”

To read their paper, go to: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMe0800032?query=TOC.

With the topic of the death penalty in the news lately in the United States, the Baze v. Rees case is important to the subject of executions in the United States. Whether you agree or disagree with the death penalty, this case brings to light some of the ramifications of legal injection in the United States.

{moscomment}

Tags See All Tags

Chemistry  Government  Medicine  Science  William Atkins