Department of Clinical and Administrative Sciences, Sullivan University College of Pharmacy, Louisville, Kentucky.
University of Kentucky College of Pharmacy, Lexington, Kentucky.
Pharmacotherapy. 2017 Oct;37(10):1249-1257. doi: 10.1002/phar.2011. Epub 2017 Oct 2.
The history of capital punishment in the United States is long and controversial. In many cases, lethal injection has brought medical personnel, ethically and professionally charged with preserving life, into the arena of assisting the state in taking life. U.S. Supreme Court decisions, including Baze v. Rees (2008) and Glossip v. Gross (2015), have evaluated and condoned lethal injection protocols. Despite the judicial validation of some midazolam-containing protocols, controversy exists about the level of unconsciousness provided due to the ceiling effects of the drug. Drug shortages, induced in part by manufacturers under pressure by death penalty opponents and governments opposed to capital punishment, have forced states to sometimes use creative means to obtain medications for use in lethal injection, even proposing to allow inmates to supply their own drugs for use in execution. Others have resorted to using compounding pharmacies and enacting tougher execution secrecy laws to protect the identities of those involved in the process. Professional organizations representing health care team members, including nursing, medicine, and pharmacy, among others, have roundly denounced the medicalization of capital punishment. Legal challenges continue to mount at all levels, leading to an uncertain future for lethal injection.
美国的死刑历史悠久且颇具争议。在许多情况下,注射死刑使医疗人员在道德和职业上肩负起协助国家夺取生命的责任。美国最高法院的裁决,包括 Baze v. Rees(2008 年)和 Glossip v. Gross(2015 年),对注射死刑的方案进行了评估和认可。尽管一些含有咪达唑仑的方案在司法上得到了验证,但由于药物的天花板效应,仍存在关于提供的无意识水平的争议。由于死刑反对者和反对死刑的政府的压力,制造商导致药物短缺,迫使各州有时不得不采取创造性的方法来获取注射死刑中使用的药物,甚至提议允许囚犯提供自己的药物用于执行死刑。其他人则诉诸于使用混合药房,并颁布更严格的死刑执行保密法,以保护参与该过程的人员的身份。代表医疗团队成员的专业组织,包括护理、医学和药学等,强烈谴责死刑的医疗化。法律挑战在各级继续增加,导致注射死刑的未来不确定。