|
Post by dunoonite on Oct 30, 2005 7:32:58 GMT -5
can anyone explain the death sentence is by lethal injection a recent documentary on tv about texas death row stated it takes up to 6 minutes to put a inmate to death if you take a vicious or lod dog to the vet to be put down it too gets a lethal injection but it only takes two and a half seconds to put it down can anybody explain the difference l
|
|
|
Post by onelastpost on Oct 30, 2005 7:44:06 GMT -5
can anyone explain the death sentence is by lethal injection a recent documentary on tv about texas death row stated it takes up to 6 minutes to put a inmate to death if you take a vicious or lod dog to the vet to be put down it too gets a lethal injection but it only takes two and a half seconds to put it down can anybody explain the difference l Well, it took longer than 2 and a half seconds with my cat... he got a shot to go to sleep, and then when he was sleeping he got a shot into the heart that stopped the heart beat... his heart was still strong, so he had to get 2 shots even... and it also took him like 20 minutes before he passed out with narcosis... - he was terminally ill... that is why he was put down...
|
|
|
Post by moghirl on Oct 30, 2005 10:40:16 GMT -5
can anyone explain the death sentence is by lethal injection a recent documentary on tv about texas death row stated it takes up to 6 minutes to put a inmate to death if you take a vicious or lod dog to the vet to be put down it too gets a lethal injection but it only takes two and a half seconds to put it down can anybody explain the difference l You will be able to read about the process in detail if you do a quick search - I've not got the links to hand right now........... I think it takes an average of 12 minutes because the veins have to be flushed with saline solution in between the 3 drugs administered. In some cases it takes even longer ........ In the UK, most doctors' personal choice of medication for ending life is diamorphine, which Dr. Harold Shipman was convicted of using to kill hundreds of his elderly patients..
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Oct 30, 2005 10:47:11 GMT -5
can anyone explain the death sentence is by lethal injection a recent documentary on tv about texas death row stated it takes up to 6 minutes to put a inmate to death if you take a vicious or lod dog to the vet to be put down it too gets a lethal injection but it only takes two and a half seconds to put it down can anybody explain the difference l You will be able to read about the process in detail if you do a quick search - I've not got the links to hand right now........... I think it takes an average of 12 minutes because the veins have to be flushed with saline solution in between the 3 drugs administered. In some cases it takes even longer ........ In the UK, most doctors' personal choice of medication for ending life is diamorphine, which Dr. Harold Shipman was convicted of using to kill hundreds of his elderly patients.. True and Diamorphine is about 100 times more pure than its derivative Heroin. Love and hugs, Judy
|
|
|
Post by dunoonite on Oct 30, 2005 12:25:18 GMT -5
hi judy you be so kind as to where i can find the pages you mention
many thanks
|
|
|
Post by hazel on Oct 30, 2005 12:38:44 GMT -5
dunoonite what do you wanna know??
Its nice to see a fellow scot on the board.
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Oct 30, 2005 15:07:41 GMT -5
hi judy you be so kind as to where i can find the pages you mention many thanks You can find out about Diamorphine in the BNF, though official documentation on Heroin I think you will find hard to come by. Love and hugs, Judy
|
|
|
Post by moghirl on Oct 30, 2005 16:49:43 GMT -5
dunoonite what do you wanna know?? Its nice to see a fellow scot on the board. Nice to see you again Hazel, don't forget me - another Scot
|
|
|
Post by moghirl on Oct 30, 2005 16:56:19 GMT -5
You will be able to read about the process in detail if you do a quick search - I've not got the links to hand right now........... I think it takes an average of 12 minutes because the veins have to be flushed with saline solution in between the 3 drugs administered. In some cases it takes even longer ........ In the UK, most doctors' personal choice of medication for ending life is diamorphine, which Dr. Harold Shipman was convicted of using to kill hundreds of his elderly patients.. True and Diamorphine is about 100 times more pure than its derivative Heroin. Love and hugs, Judy Diamorphine would obviously be the quickest and most humane method of execution - whilst the death penalty is reality at the moment - I've often wondered why the US don't use it ? Maybe because they don't want to imagine inmates might have a quick and even pleasant end......
|
|
|
Post by hazel on Oct 30, 2005 17:28:38 GMT -5
dunoonite what do you wanna know?? Its nice to see a fellow scot on the board. Nice to see you again Hazel, don't forget me - another Scot and you hunny Hope all is ok with you xxxxx Take care Hazel B.
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Oct 30, 2005 18:43:00 GMT -5
True and Diamorphine is about 100 times more pure than its derivative Heroin. Love and hugs, Judy Diamorphine would obviously be the quickest and most humane method of execution - whilst the death penalty is reality at the moment - I've often wondered why the US don't use it ? Maybe because they don't want to imagine inmates might have a quick and even pleasant end...... Using diamorphine in terminal care has always left people with a dilemna, including myself as a nurse. To maintain a patient in as near a pain free condition as possible requires increasing the dose at fairly regular intervals. The problem that arises is that you are often going to kill the patient before the illness kills them. This means that in fact if not in law you are going to murder somebody. The patient dies for the same reason why Heroin Addicts die, the bodies tolerance to the drug will one day just collapse and the patient will overdose, this could even happen in cases where the level had recently been reduced. As a senior nurse I always took on the care of dying as far as being the named patient goes, so the overall care was down to me. I would imagine that I have had overall charge in at least one hundred of these cases. So does that make me a mass murderer? Does it make the doctors who did the prescribing mass murderers? You have to remember that for murder there must eb 1) The Mensa Rea: The intention to Kill or cause Grievious Bodily Harm. and 2) The Actus Reus: Causing Death. Also you need to remember that Lord Coke (Pronounced Cook) wrote the common law definition of murder that at the time covered England and the USA. A definition that only slightly changed after independance. Murder: The unlawful killing of a human in being, living under the Kings peace. If you know that your actions will more than likely kill that person, does that cover the Mens Rea? How do you prove who actually killed the person as it will possibly not be the last person to have injected the patient? So how do you prove the Actus Reus? Or could this be seen as a conspiracy, probably not. Even if you consider that the Mens Rea and the Actus Reus are proven you still have to ask does this comply with the definition of Murder? The question that arises in the "Law of Medical Ethics" is this: If the person giving the diamorphine knows that they are giving a substance that will most likely kill and it does kill, was the killing unlawful? Of course in reality common sense does take over and the law would say that the difference between the Nurse and the Mass Murderer is that the primary intention of the nurse was to relieve pain and the mass murderer to kill. This is one of the easy problems in medical ethics and in law in general. As they say, you can never judge a book by its cover. You can never judge a crime by the bare bone facts either because many crimes are not as they first appear. You may remember the cases of the women convicted of murder when they had more than on baby die from SIDS but where later exhonerated. Had these women been living in the thirty-eight US States they would most likely have been sentenced to death. Then you would have had many on the "other place" would be as evil and nasty about them as possible. The same goes for the women who were later released from prison after having their murder convictions reduced to manslaughter when it was shown that you cannot use the same definition for "Provocation" with both men and women, as the provocation has different effects on men and women, mostly due to the physical differences strength wise between men ands women. I am sure that had those women been tried in the USA and the husband/partners had recently had a new insurance policy that these women would also have been sentenced to death. The recent high profile killings by the mothers may look open and shut cases but mostly these are not evil women but women who are seriously mentally ill. Love and hugs, Judy
|
|
|
Post by moghirl on Oct 31, 2005 14:54:56 GMT -5
Diamorphine would obviously be the quickest and most humane method of execution - whilst the death penalty is reality at the moment - I've often wondered why the US don't use it ? Maybe because they don't want to imagine inmates might have a quick and even pleasant end...... Using diamorphine in terminal care has always left people with a dilemna, including myself as a nurse. To maintain a patient in as near a pain free condition as possible requires increasing the dose at fairly regular intervals. The problem that arises is that you are often going to kill the patient before the illness kills them. This means that in fact if not in law you are going to murder somebody. The patient dies for the same reason why Heroin Addicts die, the bodies tolerance to the drug will one day just collapse and the patient will overdose, this could even happen in cases where the level had recently been reduced. As a senior nurse I always took on the care of dying as far as being the named patient goes, so the overall care was down to me. I would imagine that I have had overall charge in at least one hundred of these cases. So does that make me a mass murderer? Does it make the doctors who did the prescribing mass murderers? You have to remember that for murder there must eb 1) The Mensa Rea: The intention to Kill or cause Grievious Bodily Harm. and 2) The Actus Reus: Causing Death. Also you need to remember that Lord Coke (Pronounced Cook) wrote the common law definition of murder that at the time covered England and the USA. A definition that only slightly changed after independance. Murder: The unlawful killing of a human in being, living under the Kings peace. If you know that your actions will more than likely kill that person, does that cover the Mens Rea? How do you prove who actually killed the person as it will possibly not be the last person to have injected the patient? So how do you prove the Actus Reus? Or could this be seen as a conspiracy, probably not. Even if you consider that the Mens Rea and the Actus Reus are proven you still have to ask does this comply with the definition of Murder? The question that arises in the "Law of Medical Ethics" is this: If the person giving the diamorphine knows that they are giving a substance that will most likely kill and it does kill, was the killing unlawful? Of course in reality common sense does take over and the law would say that the difference between the Nurse and the Mass Murderer is that the primary intention of the nurse was to relieve pain and the mass murderer to kill. This is one of the easy problems in medical ethics and in law in general. As they say, you can never judge a book by its cover. You can never judge a crime by the bare bone facts either because many crimes are not as they first appear. You may remember the cases of the women convicted of murder when they had more than on baby die from SIDS but where later exonerated. Had these women been living in the thirty-eight US States they would most likely have been sentenced to death. Then you would have had many on the "other place" would be as evil and nasty about them as possible. The same goes for the women who were later released from prison after having their murder convictions reduced to manslaughter when it was shown that you cannot use the same definition for "Provocation" with both men and women, as the provocation has different effects on men and women, mostly due to the physical differences strength wise between men ands women. I am sure that had those women been tried in the USA and the husband/partners had recently had a new insurance policy that these women would also have been sentenced to death. The recent high profile killings by the mothers may look open and shut cases but mostly these are not evil women but women who are seriously mentally ill. Love and hugs, Judy Dear Judy, of course doctors and nurses caring for the terminally ill are not murderers. I know if I was dying I'd much rather go a week or two earlier, in no pain , than live an extra fortnight and maybe suffer...... Yes, I remember the case of Angela Canning, the lady convicted of killing more than one of her 3 children who died. It was later proved to be a genetic fault within the family going back generations. Also the lawyer lady, Sally Clark, who was also exonerated of the killings of her 2 baby sons... Had these two women lived in any of the 38 states, god forbid, they'd be on death row, waiting to die for crimes they did not commit. I shudder when I think of cases like these and of the mothers on DR in the US wrongly convicted of killing their children.
|
|
Mo-DAWG
Settlin' In
Yes... this is the real Mo-DAWG ..
Posts: 47
|
Post by Mo-DAWG on Oct 31, 2005 15:23:12 GMT -5
Using diamorphine in terminal care has always left people with a dilemna, including myself as a nurse. To maintain a patient in as near a pain free condition as possible requires increasing the dose at fairly regular intervals. The problem that arises is that you are often going to kill the patient before the illness kills them. This means that in fact if not in law you are going to murder somebody. The patient dies for the same reason why Heroin Addicts die, the bodies tolerance to the drug will one day just collapse and the patient will overdose, this could even happen in cases where the level had recently been reduced. As a senior nurse I always took on the care of dying as far as being the named patient goes, so the overall care was down to me. I would imagine that I have had overall charge in at least one hundred of these cases. So does that make me a mass murderer? Does it make the doctors who did the prescribing mass murderers? You have to remember that for murder there must eb 1) The Mensa Rea: The intention to Kill or cause Grievious Bodily Harm. and 2) The Actus Reus: Causing Death. Also you need to remember that Lord Coke (Pronounced Cook) wrote the common law definition of murder that at the time covered England and the USA. A definition that only slightly changed after independance. Murder: The unlawful killing of a human in being, living under the Kings peace. If you know that your actions will more than likely kill that person, does that cover the Mens Rea? How do you prove who actually killed the person as it will possibly not be the last person to have injected the patient? So how do you prove the Actus Reus? Or could this be seen as a conspiracy, probably not. Even if you consider that the Mens Rea and the Actus Reus are proven you still have to ask does this comply with the definition of Murder? The question that arises in the "Law of Medical Ethics" is this: If the person giving the diamorphine knows that they are giving a substance that will most likely kill and it does kill, was the killing unlawful? Of course in reality common sense does take over and the law would say that the difference between the Nurse and the Mass Murderer is that the primary intention of the nurse was to relieve pain and the mass murderer to kill. This is one of the easy problems in medical ethics and in law in general. As they say, you can never judge a book by its cover. You can never judge a crime by the bare bone facts either because many crimes are not as they first appear. You may remember the cases of the women convicted of murder when they had more than on baby die from SIDS but where later exonerated. Had these women been living in the thirty-eight US States they would most likely have been sentenced to death. Then you would have had many on the "other place" would be as evil and nasty about them as possible. The same goes for the women who were later released from prison after having their murder convictions reduced to manslaughter when it was shown that you cannot use the same definition for "Provocation" with both men and women, as the provocation has different effects on men and women, mostly due to the physical differences strength wise between men ands women. I am sure that had those women been tried in the USA and the husband/partners had recently had a new insurance policy that these women would also have been sentenced to death. The recent high profile killings by the mothers may look open and shut cases but mostly these are not evil women but women who are seriously mentally ill. Love and hugs, Judy Dear Judy, of course doctors and nurses caring for the terminally ill are not murderers. I know if I was dying I'd much rather go a week or two earlier, in no pain , than live an extra fortnight and maybe suffer...... Yes, I remember the case of Angela Canning, the lady convicted of killing more than one of her 3 children who died. It was later proved to be a genetic fault within the family going back generations. Also the lawyer lady, Sally Clark, who was also exonerated of the killings of her 2 baby sons... Had these two women lived in any of the 38 states, god forbid, they'd be on death row, waiting to die for crimes they did not commit. I shudder when I think of cases like these and of the mothers on DR in the US wrongly convicted of killing their children. you are very right on that Mo... i do feel the same ... when it comes to my death one day i wouldnt want to suffer like a dog and have it extended ... for myself i would prefer a fast solution .. i hope ill once kick the bucket real quick and painless ... like a heart attack ..or die in my sleep.. or even get overdosed with some medication if necessary ..i knew a guy in the neighbourhood who died slowly and painfully of a cancer swelling in the brain ...sh*t..id rather catch a bullet than leave the scene like that ... Mo-DAWG
|
|
|
Post by rain on Oct 31, 2005 15:45:17 GMT -5
When I die, I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather did... Not kicking and screaming like the passengers in his car............ LOL :-)
|
|
Mo-DAWG
Settlin' In
Yes... this is the real Mo-DAWG ..
Posts: 47
|
Post by Mo-DAWG on Oct 31, 2005 15:52:42 GMT -5
When I die, I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather did... Not kicking and screaming like the passengers in his car............ LOL :-) ..not kicking and screaming as the passengers in his car rain? sounds terrible...would you mind to tell what happened? .... ...and well btw .. my granny had a great death ... she was very healthy still when he turned 91 and 4 months later she went to sleep never to wake up again .. when we realized the next morning we children wouldnt believe that she was dead ...she looked to peaceful like she was sleeping ... well she did ... i have a nice last picture of her in my heart ... Mo-DAWG
|
|