Reference no: EM133229614
Assignment:
"There is a long history of sentencing people to die for certain crimes, and although we no longer hang people for stealing horses, 31 of the U.S. states and the federal government still allow the death penalty for murder. In 1977, Oklahoma carried out the first execution using lethal injection of drugs, and since then it has become by far the most common technique. Most often, a three-drug combination is used: The first is a sedative used to make the person unconscious, followed by a paralytic drug that stops breathing, and then a drug to stop the heart. However, what may appear to some observers as a humane and sensible alternative to the more violent older methods has run into a number of both ethical and practical roadblocks.
For one thing, these drugs were developed, tested, and approved for other purposes; no drug has been approved by the FDA for causing death. The first sedative drug to be employed in this way was sodium pentothal, a very rapid-acting barbiturate. After the only U.S. supplier suspended production of this drug in 2009, states switched to phenobarbital, midazolam (a benzodiazepine), or the sedative propofol, which is only administered intravenously. All of these drugs are capable of rendering the person unconscious when administered, but their manufacturers are also opposed to their use for this purpose. States are not allowed to import drugs from other countries to use in lethal injection, and U.S. sources have become virtually nonexistent.
In 2016, the drug company Pfizer announced new restrictions on seven of its products, to prevent them from being used in executions. This calls into question whether there is any legal source not only for the sedatives but also for the paralytic and heart-stopping substances that have been used. Some states have begun to turn to so-called compounding pharmacies, which are pharmacies that are allowed to prepare drugs without the same regulations imposed on regular manufacturers and distributors. However, the long-term viability of such relationships is not yet clear."
Consider the unintended consequences of adopting medically approved drugs and what is typically a medical procedure to end a person's life. Should physicians be involved? Can they justify doing so while still adhering to the Hippocratic oath to "do no harm"? What reasons do you think drug companies have for not wanting their products to be used for this purpose?