The role of anaesthesiologists in lethal injection: a call to action.

Abstract

In 2006, Michael Angelo Morales, a California death-row inmate, was scheduled to be executed by lethal injection. 1 Gawande A When law and ethics collide–why physicians participate in executions. N Engl J Med. 2006; 354: 1221-1229 Crossref PubMed Scopus (68) Google Scholar Morales challenged the state's lethal injection protocol in court, arguing that administration of pharmaceutical drugs without oversight by personnel with medical expertise or training would violate his Eighth Amendment rights. 2 Michael Angelo Morales v Roderick Q Hickman. Number C 06 219 JF. District Court, Northern District of California, CA, USA. Feb 14, 2006. Google Scholar The basis of his claim was that the protocol created foreseeable and undue risk of excessive pain, given the potential for consciousness during drug administration. 2 Michael Angelo Morales v Roderick Q Hickman. Number C 06 219 JF. District Court, Northern District of California, CA, USA. Feb 14, 2006. Google Scholar The California protocol called for an injection of a three-drug cocktail: thiopental, a barbiturate intended to render the inmate unconscious; pancuronium, a neuromuscular blocking drug that induces paralysis and causes cessation of breathing; and potassium chloride, to induce cardiac arrest. 3 Schwarzenegger A Tilton JE State of California lethal injection protocol review. https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legacy/files/pdf/CALethInject.pdfDate accessed: August 6, 2019 Google Scholar Morales argued that the potential for consciousness during the administration of pancuronium and potassium chloride constituted cruel and unusual punishment. 2 Michael Angelo Morales v Roderick Q Hickman. Number C 06 219 JF. District Court, Northern District of California, CA, USA. Feb 14, 2006. Google Scholar