Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Easy on death penalty vs capital punishment
The effectiveness of the death penalty
Importance of capital punishment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Easy on death penalty vs capital punishment
How does one not see a need, a requirement, a command for change? The intention of lethal injection was to provide the most humane and respectful way of execution, as well as the most painless. However, this took a turn for the worst when the drug used to sedate the inmate, Sodium Thiopental, was banned by the single company who sold the drug in hopes of getting it banned during execution. Should this have raised question sooner? In 2011, according to Stephanie Pappas, a reporter for live science, revealed the mystery drug, Sodium Thiopental was denied export from the european union, so they would be unable to provide the drug to be used in executions. It was ruled that, “companies had to ensure any exports would not be used for lethal injections.” …show more content…
The difference between a medical procedure and an execution is explained by J. Jeffrey Andrews, the secretary of the American Bar Association. Andrews said, "Patients should never confuse the death chamber with the operating room, lethal doses of execution drugs with anesthetic drugs, or the executioner with the anesthesiologist…” (Pappas, 2014, Web). There will never be a single handly perfect way to carry out executions. However, even with the lack of perfection a humane answer can be found and carried out. L. Kay Gillespie, author of “Inside the Death Chamber”, a book exploring the idea of executions, said, “Perhaps the future of capital punishment, is there is one, will develop methods of executions based on computers, space technology, or laser technologies.” A closer look at the topic by lawmakers and judges who hold the power to change the injustice would provide even the lowest, violent criminals with the last thing they have left, their inalienable rights. He goes on to say, “Perhaps even our perspectives and definitions of what is humane will change to accommodate our technologies. In a society where our realities are based on definitions, there are unlimited possibilities on the reality of capital punishment” (Gillespie, 2013, p.66-69). However, it is not just lawmakers responsibility to bring this topic to a solution. Our
Dr. Glucksberg and 'Compassion in Dying' set their case saying that the ban against doctor-assisted suicide was violating the right patients right of due process and placed an unjustified burden on terminally ill patients who required help to stop suffering misery from the disease that plagued their body and/or mind.
In the minds of the American public and jurors in capital cases the perception of lethal injection is of a clean, clinical, and painless end. As stated in the article, Lethal Injection, seventy-one percent of those responding to a 2001 survey considered injection to be the least cruel form of execution (Lethal Injection). This perception is an advantage to the state because the public is much more willing to accept execution in this form and jurors are more willing to convict and pass the death sentence. At times it is understood why the death penalty would be considered in cases. Maybe the people are a threat to not only society but also to themselves, and need to be put to death so they can do no harm to anyone. Vickers gunned down a grocery store owner who was probably trying to make a living for himself and his family. Now this man is gone; his family is left in agony, and maybe Vickers deserves to die. Some people may say an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but do two wrongs make a right?
than imprisonment, but how can being fried alive possibly be humane? How can suffering beyond belief be better than correction? There are many cases where it has taken two or three courses to kill a patient. There are many methods of execution. There are lethal injection, the gas chamber, hanging, firing squads and electrocution. All of these are currently still in use in the U.S.A. In...
In 1906, the Pure Food and Drug Act, that was years in the making was finally passed under President Roosevelt. This law reflected a sea change in medicine-- an unprecedented wave of regulations. No longer could drug companies have a secret formula and hide potentially toxic substances such as heroin under their patent. The law required drug companies to specify the ingredients of medications on the label. It also regulated the purity and dosage of substances. Not by mere coincidence was the law passed only about five years after Bayer, a German based drug company began selling the morphine derivative, heroin. Thought to be a safe, non-habit forming alternative to morphine, heroin quickly became the “cure-all drug” that was used to treat anything from coughs to restlessness. Yet, just as quickly as it became a household staple, many began to question the innocence of the substance. While the 1906 law had inherent weaknesses, it signaled the beginning of the end for “cure-all” drugs, such as opiate-filled “soothing syrups” that were used for infants. By tracing and evaluating various reports by doctors and investigative journalists on the medical use of heroin, it is clear that the desire for this legislative measure developed from an offshoot in the medical community-- a transformation that took doctors out from behind the curtain, and brought the public into a new era of awareness.
Marshall and Essig come to an agreement when talking about the death penalty specifically. They both believe that it is unconstitutional, unfair, and ineffective. In Essig’s article, he uses examples of prisoners who sought to have a more painful death in order to highlight the hypocrisy of “painless execution.” For example John Byrd, who was a convicted murder in Ohio, specifically requested to be electrocuted rather than the needle itself. The legislature abolished electrocution and forced him to die by lethal injection. Another example is a prisoner named Earl Bramblett who declared: “ I am not going to lay down on a gurney and have them stick a needle in my arm and make it look like antiseptic execution”(Essig, 2003, p. 2). The author mentions both of these prisoners because he wants the reader to visualize the actual brutality of capital
Before, there were no breakthroughs with the opportunity of saving lives. Innovations in medical technology made contributions to correct abnormal heartbeats and save lives by using a defibrillator and modern respirator. Who would know that the rapid discoveries would include successfully giving patients surgical transplants? Furthermore, President Lyndon Johnson implemented an executive policy requiring the usage of medical response trauma teams. Since 1976, this executive order has allowed the widespread use of CPR, and organizations like the American Red Cross and the American Heart Association were founded. “About 6.4 million people now survive angina chest pain each year, while an additional 700,000 people survive a heart attack each year (pg. 15 of Last Rights) Despite these remarkable breakthroughs that help those badly injured, the law becomes vague and allows more opportunities for misinterpretation on defining death. As a result, this could be advantageously used against the best interest of others and the government. “This ten-year mishmash of laws is what led the previously mentioned President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, established by an act of Congress in 1978 , to tackle the first task of defining death.” (pg. 81). The President’s Commission forced the U.S Supreme Court and
...cted. The choices to have an assisted death or to terminate live sustaining equipment, death should be our choice.
...d how these determinations effect a physician’s approach to various types of critically ill patients? These types of questions come in to play when one attempts to critically analyze the differences between the types of terminally ill patients and the subtle ethical/legal nuances between withholding and withdrawing treatment. According to a review by Larry Gostin and Robert Weir about Nancy Cruzan, “…courts examine the physician’s respect for the desires of the patient and the level of care administered. A rule forbidding physicians from discontinuing a treatment that could have been withheld initially will discourage doctors from attempting certain types of care and force them prematurely to allow a patient to die. Physicians must be free to exercise their best professional judgment, especially when facing the sensitive question of whether to administer treatment.”
Over the years the ways executions are performed have changed significantly to be less gruesome, Though even with these changes capital punishment still remains as inhumane and unconstitutional as it was before and effecting the lives of several people. The eighth amendment holds a strong cases against capital punishment. According to the University of Minnesota Human Rights Library the eighth amendment states “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”. When our country allows these executions to continue it is allowing our rights to be trampled, no one deserves to be treated inhumanely. Beyond our constitutional rights being trampled, there has also been an extreme shortage in the three step drugs used in executions due to Pharmaceutical companies not wanting to be part of killing when there sole purpose is to provide to help people survive. That leaves one with the question, if there is a shortage in these drugs how are facilities still administering lethal injections? The answer is simple. “States are now buying drugs from illegal sources, ordering new ones from compounding ph...
For centuries, the death penalty has been used by nations throughout the world. Practices such as stoning, the guillotine, firing squads, electrocution, and lethal injections have all been common practices to condemn criminals who had enacted heinous crimes. In concurrent society, however, capital punishment has begun to be viewed as a barbaric and inhumane. From these judgments, arguments and controversies have erupted over whether or not the United States should continue to practice the death penalty. With advocates and critics arguing over the morality of the death penalty, the reason to why the death penalty exists has been blurred. Because of the death penalty’s ability to thwart future criminals through fear and its practical purposes, the practice of capital punishment should continue in the United States.
Lethal injection, the current form of execution also known as the 3-drug injection, is seen to be the most humane form of execution. The 8th amendment protects inmates from enduring cruel and unusual
In Teri Schultz’s article, “Europe fights the death penalty—with drugs”, it states that Lundbeck had a group of 200 neurologists report that the drug was key for stopping sever epileptic seizures and it’s withdrawal from the US market would have an negative impact on the patients taking it. Thinking that this would be enough evidence for the drug not to be removed from the US markets. However it was not enough to settle the activists as the word spread that prisons were not stopping the use of this drug. Lundbeck and the NGO’s involved then proposed a programme to control the distribution of the drug so that it was only made available to doctors with epileptic patients (Copenhagen). With this in place in would regulate distribution and keep Lundbeck’s intentions for the drug transparent to both the activists and shareholders of the
It must be remembered that criminals are real people too, which have. life and with it, the feeling of pain, fear and the loss of their loved ones and all the other emotions that the rest of us feel. There is no such thing as a humane way of putting someone to death. Every type of execution causes the prisoner physical suffering, some. methods perhaps cause less than others, but be in no doubt that being.
Dietary supplements can be a good thing to use but they aren't always what they say they are. They are used by over half of all Americans and those people normally take a multivitamin or protein supplements after their workouts. In fact, whey protein is the most supplied dietary supplements among all Americans. People would also say that supplements are helpful when they become older in age, but then those people who believe supplements do not work at all. What they don't know is that if individuals take too much or too many supplements, it could hurt them and not benefit these people.
Drugs. The word itself sounds dangerous. Little is it known that drugs are even more dangerous that most people can ever imagine. A complete overview and insight into the world of drugs and the dangers of illegal, addictive substances will be provided. Drugs are an evident hazard and epidemic in today’s society, so it is definitely necessary that a full point of view is apparent.