Pfizer blocks supplies used for lethal injection drugs for US executions

[poledriver]

Pfizer blocks supplies used for lethal injection drugs for US executions

A decision by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer to restrict distribution of its products used in lethal injections has cut off the last remaining approved source of drugs for carrying out the death penalty.

New York-based Pfizer is believed to be the last of 25 big drug companies previously approved by the US government to take such a measure.

Capital punishment observers have hailed the move by the company as "significant", claiming that it highlights the pharmaceutical industry's opposition to the misuse of its products.

Pfizer said in a statement posted to its website on Friday that its mission includes making products to enhance and save lives, and therefore the company "strongly objects" to their use in lethal injections.

Specifically, Pfizer said it was imposing restrictions on wholesalers, distributors and direct purchasers of seven drugs that are used or considered for use in lethal injection protocols, barring these buyers from reselling them to correctional institutions for lethal injections.

Government purchasers must certify that the products will only be used for "medically prescribed patient care", the company said.

There is speculation Pfizer may have been acting in anticipation of backlash, resulting from the fact a number of executions using similar products have been botched.

Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, called the move "significant".

“It's offensive to the medical mission of the pharmaceutical companies when states misuse these medications which are designed to save lives and improve the quality of lives by instead using them to kill prisoners," he said.

Maya Foa, director of anti-death penalty group Reprieve, said that now more than 25 pharmaceutical companies have made moves to block the use of their products in executions.

“This will mean that all FDA-approved manufacturers of all execution drugs have spoken out against the misuse of medicines in lethal injections and taken steps to prevent it," she said.

"The lethal injection remains an incredibly cruel way to execute someone, and I think it's really important that the American public and the public at large has been able to see that this was just a disguise, masking what's really happening when you put someone to death.”

The US stands alone among Western nations for its use of the death penalty, but the number of prisoners it executes has slowed to a trickle in recent years, partly due to a lack of drugs.

In 2015, there were 28 executions carried out among the 31 US states with the death penalty.

According to figures from the Death Penalty Information Center, 1436 people have been executed since 1976 when the US reinstated the death penalty, reaching a peak of 98 executions in 1999.

Part of the recent drop in numbers is due to a European export ban that stopped pharmaceutical companies producing the drugs from sending them to US prisons.

Prisons generally use a cocktail of three drugs in carrying out lethal injections. One knocks the condemned unconscious, another paralyses muscles and a third stops the heart.

Some of the lethal injection executions carried out since 2014 have been widely criticised after they made prisoners die slowly while gasping, groaning and convulsing.

The US Constitution bans "cruel and unusual" punishment and defence lawyers have not hesitated to launch last-minute appeals questioning the effectiveness of various drugs, often successfully.

A few states have tried to revive the pace of executions by passing measures that guarantee anonymity to pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the required drugs.

The states of Georgia, Missouri and Texas have overcome shortages and restrictions by obtaining pentobarbital – which numbs the central nervous system, including parts of the brain – from compounding pharmacies.

Compounding pharmacies, which are not as strictly regulated as traditional drug makers, can combine, mix or alter drugs to create individually tailored medications.

Texas has carried out six executions using this method already this year, with another eight planned over the coming months.

Other states, faced with the difficulty of obtaining drugs, are now looking at alternatives, including nitrogen gas, firing squads and electric chairs.

Utah has approved the use of the firing squad if lethal injection drugs are unavailable, and Oklahoma had approved the gas chamber, prior to putting a hold on executions.


http://www.9news.com.au/world/2016/...n-drugs-for-us-executions#jUl2Px4jWj3SP2aU.99

 

[cj]

Good for pfizer! I'm ashamed to live in a country with state sanctioned murder

 

[manboychef]

I do believe that there are some people that cannot be rehabilitated and I would hate to be living in the same neighborhood, yet I also do not want to pay their way or fund private prisons.

This is a dilemma. Maybe we should just export all these people to indonesia and have them do our dirty work. They are all about executions there.

 

[JessFR]

Ill start by quickly saying while I feel some people do deserve to die, I haven't had enough faith in the system to ensure those and only those people are put to death in some time now, so in practice in against it too but for somewhat different reasons than probably most. But regardless what your beliefs are on the subject, there is so much that is stupid about all this. Where to even begin...

Ok, death penalty bad, lets get rid of it and do everything in our power to prevent it, right, all good, not everyone agrees with us, ok, to be expected, several states have the death penalty. They refuse to abolish it, so lets take away the drugs they use to carry it out. Crap, those stubborn assholes plan to use different drugs. And so they do. What's this? Well they died, it took longer, they made some noises and gasping... It sure freaked the witnesses and media out, but surely they realize that just because it looks like the condemned man is in pain or suffering doesn't mean he actually is. And given the drugs in use they likely didn't feel any pain, they just looked in pain. Wait, nope, they don't realize at all, they bought it hook line and sinker, in hindsight we shoulda seen that coming given lethal injection was already a highly painless way to die (I'm willing to be proven wrong here but no evidence ive ever seen comes even close to supporting such an illogical claim) but a while back we figured out if we could convince people it wasn't maybe we could kill the death penalty, no pun intended, on constitutional grounds. Or at least have more ammo to turn people further against it.
Fuck... Shouldn't have made that ammo remark, I think they overheard us, just when we seem to have finally put an end to lethal injection, they're considering just bringing back the firing squad, or the chair even, those really were potentially cruel and painful, why can't they just stop the death penalty instead of stubbornly persisting. It's almost like a lot of people in their state don't so widely disapprove of the death penalty as people do here.


Ok I'm done now. All I'm saying is so much of what's being said and argued on this subject is retarded, I think I know why though. If we accept that it is consistently painless, and that as much as we disagree they wont be pressured to stop by external forces. Then the only option left is to just keep making the case that the death penalty is wrong either morally or because of problems with the justice system. And wait until the day comes that there's enough internal political pressure in that state for it to stop. Well, that of amend the federal constitution. And it looked hard to accomplish before.

 

[Kittycat5]

As long as there is a pharmacist who couldnt care less about how many people you kill as long as they get paid, Pfizer, Merck, Astra Zeneca and all the rest can continue this farce that they are too moral to allow their drugs to kill. Irony.

 

[JessFR]

^^ Not that I'm saying you're wrong about your claim that those pharmaceutical companies aren't being entirely upfront about their motivations and that it's unlikely to be a moral decision.

But out of curiosity, why DO you think they stopped the authorities ordering the drugs.

If it's just a farce and a lie, then what's the real reason the number of people put to death have dropped, or the real reason the authorities are trying new drugs in the procedure.

It doesn't seem like the government can just get them from these companies some other way considering that. Not in the quantity they need anyhow. So by doing this, how is it actually benefitting the drug companies. And if it's for PR reasons, that would mean they think people are more likely to get their products for their disease based on a moral stance against execution. And that seems to me even less likely than the drug company actually having done it for moral reasons.

So, what do you think?

 

[Kittycat5]

I think if my state department of corrections contacted me tomorrow, I could supply them with whatever they want.

Why did they stop? Its bad fucking PR.

 

[ProfessorBananas]

Does the average drug consumer really give a fuck about lethal injection? In the United States anyways..
I live Missouri, one of the states who recieved honorable mention for making adjustments, but the majority of people I've talked to could really give a fuck about where the meds came from(or what the they are, or why they are on them..)
I live in rural America but in my experience, from people that live here..
The public doesnt give a shit sometimes..
For realz, it's a red state but I still wonder if anyone really gives a fuck about this unless they care about the issue.

 

[JessFR]

That's pretty much my thinking...

"it's bad PR"

That only makes sense, assuming they only do anything for money, if the amount of money they've lost in no longer supplying drugs for use in lethal injection, is less than the amount of money they will gain increased customers who will now buy from them when they previously wouldn't have because of the drug companies support of lethal injection.

And i just don't buy that at all, not even a little.
Their customers are people who are sick, who are thinking about buying the drug companies product for their medical issues. I dont see those people thinking about capital punishment politics of all things at a time like that, I don't see them thinking about it when buying their medication at all really for that matter a fringe group of hard line anti death penalty activists would do it, but I can't for one moment imagine that the number of them is even close to high enough to provide a net profit for the companies.

So I don't buy it.

 

[Kittycat5]

Your last sentence, exactly. It is a ploy by those opposed to the death penalty. It is equally a farce that drug companies are taking a stand here to garner sympathy and promoting their agenda of pretending to be improving lives. Pharma has used every dirty business, scientific, and political trick all in the name of money. I respect them less by not selling this particular product, not because I believe the death penalty is right, but because they are trying to stand on moral grounds that long disappeared from their business plan.

 

[Kittycat5]

You really dont think they do anything for money? [MENTION=266718]JessFR[/MENTION]

 

[JessFR]

Don't be an ass Kittycat5, I said nothing of the sort.

What I've brought up is that I'd find it surprising if the good PR generated by this stunt results in a net profit after deducting the loss from no longer selling them to the government. I'm not saying that CAN'T be the reason, but if it is, I'm quite surprised by that result.

And if it isn't the reason, I'm curious what people who think the stated reason is impossible think is the real reason. If they have any explanation more believable than the above.

I find it highly unlikely this is motivated exclusively, and fairly unlikely that this is motivated just in part, by moral reasons. I just also don't buy that it's just a PR stunt with no extenuating factors behind the publicity.

 

[Kittycat5]

What reason other than morality? They are only limiting these drugs to places that use them expressly to kill people, nobody else. How much you think Pfizer loses from not selling some pancuronium and KCl to prisons? Pennies to them, so they are capitalizing on this rather weak attempt to draw a line in the sand as to who they sell to. And not capitalizing financially, but simply to give their reputation a bit of a boost. They create plenty of their own headaches but will fight to the death to protect their products that already may in fact be killing those they are supposedly helping. This is like low-hanging fruit in terms of image building and brand protection

 

[JessFR]

What reason other than morality? They are only limiting these drugs to places that use them expressly to kill people, nobody else. How much you think Pfizer loses from not selling some pancuronium and KCl to prisons? Pennies to them, so they are capitalizing on this rather weak attempt to draw a line in the sand as to who they sell to. And not capitalizing financially, but simply to give their reputation a bit of a boost. They create plenty of their own headaches but will fight to the death to protect their products that already may in fact be killing those they are supposedly helping. This is like low-hanging fruit in terms of image building and brand protection

Hmm, you know what I've changed my mind, that's a reasonable and compelling argument. Congratulations, you've convinced me. I have nothing more to say on the subject.

 

[Kittycat5]

Ive been up all night so I dont know if that was sarcasm.

 

[JessFR]

It really wasn't. I try hard to make it a point to give potentially new opinions I haven't considered or well formed arguments a chance of persuading me better than the logic and reasoning behind my belief. Usually I've spent a long time going over and over my beliefs, forming and refining them and going over every alternative and view I can think of. So rarely is it the case someone gives me both a view that's something I hadn't considered, or another attempt at logical reasoning, and I find on consideration that it is better, or more plausible, or more logical, or better reflects my fundamental core values.

But every so often, it does. I was honestly persuaded by your argument. After reading it and reflecting I felt it was more likely, more plausible, and more logically persuasive. So I changed my mind.

No sarcasm, totally serious. It's a shame we are so conditioned by experience to find the idea of someone actually being persuaded by a view different to theirs rather than mindlessly trying to continue defending their original position in their obsession not to have been wrong, that if someone actually does say they changed their mind it's hard to believe they're serious.

I don't approve of and in fact blame for much of what's wrong in the world the tendency of people to refuse to allow even themselves to honestly consider and evaluate contrary arguments As well as the destructive and damaging habit people often have of refusing to be wrong or corrected either in subjective opinion or objective fact.

If I did it when I intensely dislike that behavior and partially blame it for how terrible our political system currently is and our intense cultural divisions, then I would be a disingenuous hypocrite at best.

And that's why I put a lot of effort into giving other peoples views as neutral and unbiased an assessment and comparison with my own views as I can manage. And on the occasions I find myself siding with a different view than my original one, I do my best to promptly admit it, and where wrong objectively, admit as such, or wrong subjectively, change my opinion.

In this case, it's somewhat objective and subjective, but the point is, because of my above beliefs I feel compelled to openly state I have changed my mind and believe my original viewpoint was wrong, I failed to accurately consider how little the companies would likely lose from this and as a result missed the plausible explanation that they did it for PR simply to negate the bad PR they have so much of, which can only be a positive thing for them. It makes sense, it's believable. It easily provides a logical, plausible, and likely explanation to my suggestion that there was no motive other than their claimed one. As a result that suggestion is likely wrong both factually and in its underlying suggestion.

And that's why I so vocally changed my mind and explained my reasoning. To hopefully lead by example perhaps, or if not, at least assuage and follow my own conscience.

 

[Raysu]

For as many drugs that the DEA incinerates I don't see how the government is incapable of supplying the correctional institutions themselves. I never heard of someone who found heroin OD painful after they lived to tell about it. I'm not in favor of the death penalty and I'm all for Pfizer so this was good news to me.

 

[pofacedhoe]

As long as there is a pharmacist who couldnt care less about how many people you kill as long as they get paid, Pfizer, Merck, Astra Zeneca and all the rest can continue this farce that they are too moral to allow their drugs to kill. Irony.

yeah what about http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26067987

20'000 prescription drug overdoses in 1 year? dafuk.

where is your "oh we dont want to kill people" now?

 

[JessFR]

For as many drugs that the DEA incinerates I don't see how the government is incapable of supplying the correctional institutions themselves. I never heard of someone who found heroin OD painful after they lived to tell about it. I'm not in favor of the death penalty and I'm all for Pfizer so this was good news to me.

I said something about this subject earlier. It is unfortunately completely irrelevant how painful the lethal injection it is or how distressing it is for the condemned prisoner. Noone cares, not the anti death penalty lobby, not the pro death penalty lobby, not the witnesses to the execution, not to the government, not to anyone.

What they care about, is how distressing and how painful it LOOKS like the prisoner is in based on the ignorant visual assessment of the witnesses, and how painful and distressing the ignorant public assess it to be when they read the description provided to the media by the witnesses of what happened.

How painful or distressing it is from the point of view of the condemned prisoner during the execution is not considered or investigated or questioned or brought up. It is entirely ignored. The witnesses and public think if it looks like something that someone in pain or distress would do, were they not rendered unconscious and already thought their final thought long before their final time of death, then that's proof it is. Most of us should know better, since a lot of us have experienced overdoses first or second hand (I certainly have, first hand, remember virtually nothing) , and a lot of us have woken up in hospital with no memory of what happened or we got there or what we might have done (know that one too, it sucks, not a nice way to wake up in a hospital bed hooked up to IVs, oximeters, automated blood pressure cuff, the usual). So you'd think and hope our demographic here at blue light should be quite well qualified to make an estimation of what they're really feeling as they're put to death)

 

[Kittycat5]

There was a guy who survived the new hydromorphone/midazolam combo. Dont remember if he was able to communicate. Will look.