The two doctors were called as expe

The two doctors were called as expert witnesses. Both had extensive anesthetic knowledge and impressive educations, yet their conclusions differed. Dr. Waisel believed Ohio’s lethal injection protocol, 10 mg of midazolam and 40 mg of hydromorphone, was not strong enough. Waisel warned that the "implication of the inadequate dose of midazolam and the hydromorphone (which does not produce unconsciousness) is that there is, at the very least, a substantial risk an inmate such as McGuire will be aware of and experience air hunger as the ventilator depressant effects of hydromorphone and midazolam take effect." Essentially, McGuire would die a slow and painful death, completely aware of his surroundings.

On the other hand, Dr. Dershwitz found Dr. Waisel’s findings inaccurate. In his expert statement, Dr. Dershwitz determined "the dose of hydromorphone specified in the first injection by the Ohio protocol is extremely high and is expected to cause virtually every person given such a dose to stop breathing."

McGuire took about 20 minutes to die when he was executed on January 16 of this year. During that time, he struggled, gasped, choked, and attempted to sit up. To onlookers, he appeared to be in visible pain. It was not unlike Wood's death, though it only took a fraction of the time. Dr. Waisel's medical expertise proved correct in this particular case. Ohio has placed a moratorium on executions ever since.

While both men appeared to be in visible pain during their deaths, it is unclear how they actually felt. We spoke with Dr. Steven Baumrucker, Associate Editor in Chief of the American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, who explained that in the Arizona execution, the inmate was given the equivalent of 800 mg of oral morphine, or 80 Lortab 10's.

"If this person was tolerant of opioids, that may not be enough to kill him quickly. This maybe why this took two hours. That is a questionable cocktail. Now, did he suffer during that? The things they saw as suffering maybe bothered the people that were watching more than it was bothering him. But can we say that he didn't suffer? No."

An Ohio official told the judge working to find an acceptable lethal injection protocol that "You're not entitled to a pain-free execution." This mentality is a point of contention on both sides of the execution battle. While some believe a painful execution qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment, others believe that with murderers who are guilty of terrible crimes against humanity, the end is more important than the means.

"ETHICS IS NOT CALCULUS."
In the case of Wood's execution, the lawyers sought the lethal injection protocol to ensure that the death would not be painful. Additionally, a further investigation could have prolonged the inmate's life, however the court ruled against the revealing of any data that would have required more investigating.

While the lawyers defending Wood believed this was necessary information to their client, on the other side of the lethal injection battle is the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which believes the protocol itself is of no matter to the inmate and such lawsuits only "hold up executions." Michael Rushford is president of the foundation, which describes itself as "a nonprofit, public interest law organization dedicated to improving the administration of criminal justice."

"Fighting over the exact drug, and where we got it, is a waste of time and money," Rushford explained to The Wire. "We should be looking for the simplest, least painful, cheapest way to do this." Rushford also takes the view of the Ohio official when it comes to pain during death. "This murderer took two hours to die. Frankly, if the guy takes two hours to die, and he’s asleep for those two hours, that in our point of view is a successful execution." On the contrary, Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, believes a two-hour execution is "inhumane and objectionable, even if they are pretty much asleep."

In a phone interview with The Wire, Dieter argued the secrecy behind the protocol was problematic. "States have had to scramble to replace the Chapman formula. To get help with that, from doctors, from pharmaceutical companies, from local pharmacies, they have had to assure anonymity. People are willing to say what might work, but they aren’t willing to have their name or their company associated with it. So we have this secrecy around it." On the contrary, Rushford believes the anonymity is necessary, as otherwise, the medical professionals and manufacturers involved may face protests.

With reports of two recent botched executions, Dieter believes momentum is building for the process to become unveiled. "Courts have allowed these executions to go forward despite the secrecy. There is no incentive for the state to reveal more than they have to, but this is getting to the point of national embarrassment. A well-functioning Congress may have already called for hearings."

While Rushford also notes that little is publicly known about exactly how the protocol is made, and by whom, he believes there is a larger issue at hand: the concept of a compounded protocol itself is flawed. Instead, he advocates for a single drug process. Rushford also suggested that death by nitrogen gas should be considered for those on death row and noted "some states are even considering firing squads again."

"The court is more comfortable with a one-drug protocol. That’s much less complicated, and there are scores of anesthesia that are available. It’s very effective," said Rushford. "The best anesthesia is the one that is most effective, that they are simply put to sleep. If you give someone enough of that drug, they will die, it'll be boring, they'll go to sleep." Rushford's organization has successfully persuaded two states, Texas and Missouri, to adopt the single-drug execution method using a high dose of pentobarbital, which is used to put down animals.

While it may be "boring," Dr. Baumrucker notes that it may not be quite that simple. "There is a finite number of opioid receptors in the body. Once a narcotic fits that receptor in the body; the classic one is the mu opioid receptor. When you hit it, it does several things, there are specific changes in the body." In other words, after a certain point, more drugs does not mean faster death, even at fifteen doses, as in the Arizona execution.

"There are reasons why there are maximum doses of these things. So if you crank up the dose, you can kill someone on purpose. You can, theoretically, kill people by giving them an overdose of Tylenol but that is a long, drawn out, miserable affair," continued Dr. Baumrucker. "You're relying on the drug to be toxic enough to kill them quickly, and now, who is studying them? Because it is unethical to do these studies, you have to hope for the best."

Still, a number of other states are set on using a lethal injection composed of several drugs. "States that are still using a combination of drugs, you have more drugs to buy and locate, and there is always the question of dose," said Rushford, "We think that the whole issue is kind of academic — you are trying to end the life of a murderer."

PRIMUM NON NOCERE
When it comes to the idea of lethal injections as academia, the academic world of medicine shifts uncomfortably in their lab coats. Primum non nocere, reads the Hippocratic Oath: first do no harm. To execute is, inherently, to harm.

Both of the doctors consulted as experts in the Ohio case were anesthesiologists. Their expertise is in line with the types of drugs used to kill inmates. They are extremely well informed on exactly how a body will die when these drugs are injected, and their expertise could be used to create lethal injections that offer as little pain as possible. However, their professional community does not condone such involvement. We reached out to the American Society of Anesthesiologists, who offered this statement on the matter:

The American Society of Anesthesiologists® (ASA®) does not take a position on lethal injection or capital punishment, as this is not the practice of medicine. Physicians are healers. The doctor-patient relationship depends upon the premise that a physician uses his or her medical expertise only for the benefit of patients.

The American Medical Association feels similarly, as their statement attests:

An individual’s opinion on capital punishment is the personal moral decision of the individual. A physician, as a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, should not be a participant in a legally authorized execution.

While euthanasia is illegal in the United States, assisted suicide — dying with the aid of physician — is legal in Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Vermont. Hospice care, which pursues a death that is as peaceful and pain-free as possible, is legal, and encouraged, throughout the country. Medical professionals have the expertise to offer a comfortable death, but the ethics surrounding this practice are difficult to navigate.

"The ethical argument is that the execution is going to happen anyway, so we as physicians should make it as comfortable as we possibly can. However, the AMA feels that’s a flawed argument because that’s a flawed premise," explained Dr. Baumrucker. "The number one idea is 'non-maleficence,' which is 'first do no harm.' The key word in that statement is 'first'. Number one, don’t do any harm. Now whether you agree with lethal injection or not, or the death penalty or not, it is considered to be unethical for a physician to participate."

This view from the medical community is entirely understandable, and they are certainly not in charge of creating the updated lethal injection protocol. However, neither, it seems, is anyone else. The community with the most expertise is ethically bound to not get involved. So instead, we are faced

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

The two doctors were called as expert witnesses. Both had extensive knowledge and anesthetic impressive educations, yet their conclusions differed. Dr. Waisel believed lethal injection protocol, Ohio 10 mg of midazolam and 40 mg of hydromorphone, was not strong enough. Waisel warned that the "implication of the inadequate dose of midazolam and the hydromorphone (which does not produce unconsciousness) is that there is, at the very least, a substantial risk an inmate such as McGuire will be aware of and experience air hunger as the ventilator depressant effects of midazolam and hydromorphone take effect." Essentially, McGuire would die a slow and painful death, completely aware of his surroundings.On the other hand, Dr. Dershwitz found Dr. Waisel's findings inaccurate. In his statement, expert Dr. Dershwitz determined "the dose of hydromorphone specified in the first injection by the Ohio protocol is extremely high and is expected to cause virtually every person given such a dose to stop breathing." McGuire took about 20 minutes to die when he was executed on January 15 of this year. During that time, he struggled, gasped, choked, and attempted to sit up. To onlookers, he appeared to be in visible pain. It was not unlike Wood's death, though it only took a fraction of the time. Dr. Waisel's medical expertise proved correct in this particular case. Ohio has placed a moratorium on executions ever since.While both men appeared to be in visible pain during their deaths, it is unclear how they actually felt. We spoke with Dr. Steven Baumrucker, Associate Editor in Chief of the American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, who explained that in the Arizona execution, the inmate was given the equivalent of 800 mg of oral morphine, or 80 Lortab 10 's."If this person was tolerant of opioids, that may not be enough to kill him quickly. This maybe why this took two hours. That is a questionable cocktail. Now, did he suffer during that? The things they saw as suffering maybe bothered the people that were watching more than it was bothering him. But can we say that he didn't suffer? No. " An Ohio official told the judge working to find an acceptable lethal injection protocol that "you're not entitled to a pain-free execution." This mentality is a point of contention on both sides of the battle execution. While some believe a painful execution qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment, others believe that with murderers who are guilty of terrible crimes against humanity, the end is more important than the means. "ETHICS IS NOT CALCULUS."In the case of Wood's execution, the lawyers sought the lethal injection protocol to ensure that the death would not be painful. Additionally, a further investigation could have prolonged the inmate's life, however the court ruled against the revealing of any data that would have required more investigating.While the lawyers defending Wood believed this was necessary information to their client, on the other side of the lethal injection in battle is the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which believes the protocol itself is of no matter to the inmate and such lawsuits only "hold up executions." Michael Rushford is president of the foundation, which describes itself as "a nonprofit, public interest law organization dedicated to improving the administration of criminal justice." "Fighting over the exact drug, and where we got it, is a waste of time and money," Rushford explained to The Wire. "We should be looking for the simplest, least painful, cheapest way to do this." Rushford also takes the view of the Ohio official when it comes to pain during death. "This murderer took two hours to die. Frankly, if the guy takes two hours to die, and he's asleep for those two hours, that in our point of view is a successful execution. " On the contrary, Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, believes a two-hour execution is "inhumane and objectionable, even if they are pretty much asleep." In a phone interview with The Wire, Dieter argued the secrecy behind the protocol was problematic. "States have had to scramble to replace the Chapman formula. To get help with that, from doctors, from pharmaceutical companies, from local pharmacies, they have had to assure anonymity. People are willing to say what might work, but they aren't willing to have their name or their company associated with it. So we have this secrecy around it. " On the contrary, Rushford believes the anonymity is necessary, as otherwise, the medical professionals and manufacturers involved may face protests. With reports of two recent botched executions, Dieter believes momentum is building for the process to become unveiled. "The Courts have allowed these executions to go forward despite the secrecy. There is no incentive for the state to reveal more than they have to, but this is getting to the point of national embarrassment. A well-functioning Congress may have already called for hearings. " While Rushford also notes that little is publicly known about exactly how the protocol is made, and by whom, he believes there is a larger issue at hand: the concept of a compounded protocol itself is flawed. Instead, he advocates for a single drug process. Rushford also suggested that death by nitrogen gas should be considered for those on death row and noted, "some states are even considering firing squads again." "The court is more comfortable with a one-drug protocol. That's much less complicated, and there are scores of anesthesia that are available. It's very effective, "said Rushford. "The best anesthesia is the one that is most effective, that they are simply put to sleep. If you give someone enough of that drug, they will die, it'll be boring, they'll go to sleep. " Rushford's organization has successfully persuaded two states, Texas and Missouri, to adopt the single-drug execution method using a high dose of pentobarbital, which is used to put down animals. While it may be "boring," Dr. Baumrucker notes that it may not be quite that simple. "There is a finite number of opioid receptors in the body. Once a narcotic fits that receptor in the body; the classic one is the mu opioid receptor. When you hit it, it does several things, there are specific changes in the body. " In other words, after a certain point, more drugs does not mean faster death, even at fifteen doses, as in the Arizona execution."There are reasons why there are maximum doses of these things. So if you crank up the dose, you can kill someone on purpose. You can, theoretically, kill people by giving them an overdose of Tylenol but that is a long, drawn out, miserable affair, "continued Dr. Baumrucker. "You're relying on the drug to be toxic enough to kill them quickly, and now, who is studying them? Because it is unethical to do these studies, you have to hope for the best. "Still, a number of other states are set on using a lethal injection composed of several drugs. "States that are still using a combination of drugs, you have more drugs to buy and locate, and there is always the question of dose," said Rushford, "We think that the whole issue is kind of academic — you are trying to end the life of a murderer." PRIMUM NON NOCEREWhen it comes to the idea of lethal injections as academia, the academic world of medicine shifts uncomfortably in their lab coats. Primum non nocere, reads the Hippocratic Oath: first do no harm. To execute is, inherently, to harm. Both of the doctors consulted as experts in the Ohio case were anesthesiologists. Their expertise is in line with the types of drugs used to kill inmates. They are extremely well informed on exactly how a body will die when these drugs are injected, and their expertise could be used to create lethal injections that offer as little pain as possible. However, their professional community does not condone such involvement. We reached out to the American Society of Anesthesiologists, who offered this statement on the matter:The American Society of Anesthesiologists® (ASA®) does not take a position on lethal injection or capital punishment, as this is not the practice of medicine. Physicians are healers. The doctor-patient relationship depends upon the premise that a physician uses his or her medical expertise only for the benefit of patients.The American Medical Association feels similarly, as their statement attests: An individual’s opinion on capital punishment is the personal moral decision of the individual. A physician, as a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, should not be a participant in a legally authorized execution.While euthanasia is illegal in the United States, assisted suicide — dying with the aid of physician — is legal in Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Vermont. Hospice care, which pursues a death that is as peaceful and pain-free as possible, is legal, and encouraged, throughout the country. Medical professionals have the expertise to offer a comfortable death, but the ethics surrounding this practice are difficult to navigate."The ethical argument is that the execution is going to happen anyway, so we as physicians should make it as comfortable as we possibly can. However, the AMA feels that’s a flawed argument because that’s a flawed premise," explained Dr. Baumrucker. "The number one idea is 'non-maleficence,' which is 'first do no harm.' The key word in that statement is 'first'. Number one, don’t do any harm. Now whether you agree with lethal injection or not, or the death penalty or not, it is considered to be unethical for a physician to participate."This view from the medical community is entirely understandable, and they are certainly not in charge of creating the updated lethal injection protocol. However, neither, it seems, is anyone else. The community with the most expertise is ethically bound to not get involved. So instead, we are faced

Kết quả (Việt) 2:

The two Doctors là là gọi Witnesses expert. Both had extensive knowledge and impressive educations anesthetic, yet differed chúng Conclusions. Dr. Ohio's lethal injection believed Waisel protocol, 10 mg of midazolam and 40 mg of hydromorphone, was not strong enough. Warned Waisel là "implication of the Inadequate dose of midazolam and the hydromorphone (mà does not tạo unconsciousness) đã there is, at the very nhất, a substantial security risk inmate như McGuire will be aware of and experience air hunger as the depressant effects of hydromorphone ventilator and midazolam take effect. " Essentially, McGuire would die a slow and Painful Death, completely aware of his surroundings. On the other hand, Dr. Dershwitz found Dr. Waisel's findings inaccurate. In his expert statement, Dr. Dershwitz định "the dose of hydromorphone rõ in the first injection by the Ohio protocol is extremely high and is expected to cause, virtually every person given such 'a dose to stop breathing." McGuire took about 20 minutes to die khi he was executed on January 16 of this year. During mà time, he struggled, gasped, choked, and thử to sit up. To onlookers, He appeared to be in visible pain. It was not unlike Wood's death, though it only took a fraction of the time. Dr. Waisel's medical Expertise Particular proved correct in this case. Ohio has a moratorium on executions đặt Ever since. While cả men appeared, to be in visible pain khi có deaths, it is unclear how chúng Actually Felt. We spoke with Dr. Steven Baumrucker, Associate Editor in Chief of the American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, who Explained mà in the Arizona execution, the inmate was given the equivalent of 800 mg of oral morphine, or 80 Lortab 10's. "If this person was tolerant of opioids, that unfortunately not be enough to kill him Quickly. This maybe why this took two hours. That is a questionable cocktail. Now, did he Suffer khi that? The things chúng saw maybe apprehended as The People That Were Watching bothered more than it was bothering him. But he can chúng mà did not Suffer drunk? No. " An Ohio official working Told the judge to find an acceptable lethal injection protocol mà "You're not entitled to a pain-free execution." This is a point of contention mentality on Both Sides of the execution battle. While some believe a Painful execution qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment, others believe mà with murderers who are guilty of terrible crimes với humanity, the end is more Important coal the means. "Ethics IS NOT Calculus." In the case of Wood's execution, the lethal injection protocol the lawyers sought to Ensure rằng would not be Painful death. Nữa, a Further Investigation could have prolonged the inmate's life, Tuy nhiên the court ruled Against the Revealing of any data mà would have required more Investigating. While the lawyers Defending Wood believed this was cần information to ask for their client, on the other side of the lethal injection battle is the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, mà chính nó Believes the protocol is of no matter to the inmate and such 'Lawsuits only "hold up executions." Michael Rushford is president of the foundation, mà diễn tả chính nó as "a Nonprofit, public interest law organization dedicated to the administration of criminal justice Improving." "Fighting over the exact drug, and Where We got it, is a waste of time and money , "Rushford Explained to The Wire. "We shouldnt be looking for the simplest, nhất Painful, cheapest way to do this." Takes the view Rushford cũng official of the Ohio khi khi pain Comes to death. "This murderer took two hours to die. Frankly, if the guy takes two hours to die, and he's asleep for two hours những, that in our view is a successful point of execution." On the the contrary, Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, a two-hour Believes execution is "inhumane and objectionable, dù chúng pretty much asleep." In a phone interview with The Wire, Dieter argued the Secrecy behind the protocol was problematic. "States have had to scramble to replace the Chapman formula. To get help with that, from Doctors, from pharmaceutical companies, from local pharmacy, They have had to Assure anonymity. People are willing to say what might, work, but not chúng tên willing to have associated with it or ask for their company. So this WE HAVE Secrecy around it. " On the the contrary, the anonymity is cần Rushford Believes, as otherwise, the medical professionals and manufacturers face protests INVOLVED sewing. With recent reports of two botched executions, Dieter momentum is building Believes for the process to trở unveiled. "Courts have allowed executions to go forward despite những the Secrecy. There is no incentive for the state to Reveal More Than They have to, but this is getting to the point of national embarrassment. A well-functioning Congress for hearings unfortunately have already gọi . " While Rushford cũng little is publicly known mà notes about Exactly how the protocol is made, and by Whom, he Believes there is a larger issue at hand: the concept of a compounded chính nó is flawed protocol. Thay, he ADVOCATES process for a single drug. Rushford cũng Suggested mà death by nitrogen gas nên Considered for Those on death row and noted "some states are even level considering firing squads again." "The court is more comfortable with a one-drug protocol. That's much less complicated, and there are được available scores of anesthesia. It's very effective, "said Rushford. "The best anesthesia is the one nằm nhất effective, that simply put to sleep chúng. If you give someone enough of mà drug, chúng will die, it'll be boring, they'll go to sleep." Rushford's organization has successfully persuaded two states, Texas and Missouri, to adopt the single-drug execution method using a high dose of pentobarbital, used to put down mà animals. While it unfortunately be "boring," Dr. Baumrucker notes có có it unfortunately not be quite simple. "There is a finite number of opioid receptors in the body. Once a narcotic receptors in the body fits mà; the classic one mu opioid receptor is the. When you hit it, it does vài things, there are specific changes in the body. " In other words, after A Certain Point, more drugs mean faster does not death, at fifteen Doses even level, as in the Arizona execution. "There are Reasons why there are maximum những Doses of things. So if you crank up the dose, you can kill someone on purpose. You can, theoretically, kill người by giving an overdose of Tylenol but added là long, drawn out, miserable affair, "continued Dr. Baumrucker. "You're Relying on the drug to be toxic enough to kill Quickly add, for now, who is studying added? Because it is unethical to by những studies, you have to hope for the best." Still, a number of other states are set on using a lethal injection drugs composed of vài. "States are still using a combination mà of drugs, you have to buy and locate more drugs, and there is always the question of dose," said Rushford, "We think the whole issue is mà kind of academic - you are thử end the life of a murderer. " primum NON NOCERE When it Comes to the idea of lethal injections as Academia, the academic world of medicine shifts uncomfortably trong lab coats. Primum non nocere, Hippocratic Oath reads the: first because no Harm. To execute is, inherently, to Harm. Both of the Doctors consulted as experts in the Ohio case là anesthesiologists. Their Expertise is in line with the types of drugs used to kill inmates. They are extremely well Informed on Exactly how a body will die drugs are injected những khi, and ask for their Expertise to create could be used lethal injections as little pain as mà im possible offer. Tuy nhiên, ask for their professional community Involvement không condone such '. We reached out to the American Society of anesthesiologists, who Offered on the matter this statement: The American Society of Anesthesiologists® (ASA®) does not take a position on capital punishment or lethal injection, as this is not the practice of medicine. Physicians are healers. The doctor-patient relationship depends upon the premise mà a physician uses his or her Artist medical Expertise only for the Benefit of Patients. The American Medical Association feels similarly, as có statement attests: An the individual's opinion on capital punishment is the personal moral Decision of the the individual. A physician, as a member of a profession dedicated to Preserving life there is hope of doing khi comparison, shouldnt be a participant in a Legally Authorized execution. While euthanasia is illegal in the United States, assisted suicide - with the aid of physician dying - is legal in Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Vermont. Hospice care, mà pursues a peaceful death and pain nằm-free as possible The as, is legal, and TC are encouraged, throughout the country. Medical professionals have to offer a comfortable Expertise the death, but the ethics surrounding this practice are khó to navigate. "The ethical argument is rằng execution is going to happen anyway, compared chúng Physicians shouldnt make it as comfortable as possibly can as chúng. Tuy nhiên, the AMA feels that's a flawed argument that's a flawed premise vì, "Explained Dr. Baumrucker. "The number one idea is 'non-maleficence,' mà 'first because no Harm.' The key word in mà statement is 'first'. Number one, do not do any Harm. Now Whether you agree with lethal injection or not, or the death penalty or not, it is Considered to be unethical for a physician to Participate. " This view from the medical community is entirely understandable, and certainly not in charge chúng of lethal injection protocol tạo updated. Tuy nhiên, neither, it seems?, Is anyone else. The community with the Expertise is ethically bound to nhất not get INVOLVED. So thay, We Are faced