Alabama to use Nitrogen as execution method

[StringJunky]

Any thoughts on the potential outcomes this? From what understand, if done correctly with no significant rebreathing of carbon dioxide, they should be unconconcious in a few breathes. If it carries out without incident, the 'cruel and unusual' label won't stand anymore.

[CharonY]

28 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Any thoughts on the potential outcomes this? From what understand, if done correctly with no significant rebreathing of carbon dioxide, they should be unconconcious in a few breathes. If it carries out without incident, the 'cruel and unusual' label won't stand anymore.

I actually don't know whether there is good data on it for humans. In rats, N2 is not considered an effective means of euthanasia (whereas CO2 is allowed, mostly in conjunction with a secondary euthanasia method).

In rat studies, exposure to 100% N2 induced  hyperreflexia (twitching) and unconsciousness after 3 minutes and death took over 7 minutes (30s and 2.5 mins for CO2 no twitching, reduction in heart rate and respiration). There is also a higher risk that animals recovered after assumed death.

I would think that a method not considered suitable for rats would also not be considered suitable for humans.

 

[StringJunky]

23 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I actually don't know whether there is good data on it for humans. In rats, N2 is not considered an effective means of euthanasia (whereas CO2 is allowed, mostly in conjunction with a secondary euthanasia method).

In rat studies, exposure to 100% N2 induced  hyperreflexia (twitching) and unconsciousness after 3 minutes and death took over 7 minutes (30s and 2.5 mins for CO2 no twitching, reduction in heart rate and respiration). There is also a higher risk that animals recovered after assumed death.

I would think that a method not considered suitable for rats would also not be considered suitable for humans.

 

I would have thought helium would be better, with it being inert.

[CharonY]

I don't think helium was considered, but argon was. Here, similarly to N2 distress reactions (gasping, elevated heart rates, seizures) were observed. As distressing as CO2 is, other methods seem to be worse (in rats, that is).

Edit: as mentioned, I really know about rats, but it seems helium has been considered a form of painless asphyxia. It is a tad more expensive, though (but for executions it should not really matter). I also do not know whether studies actually have monitored how painless it really is.

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

I actually don't know whether there is good data on it for humans. In rats, N2 is not considered an effective means of euthanasia (whereas CO2 is allowed, mostly in conjunction with a secondary euthanasia method).

In rat studies, exposure to 100% N2 induced  hyperreflexia (twitching) and unconsciousness after 3 minutes and death took over 7 minutes (30s and 2.5 mins for CO2 no twitching, reduction in heart rate and respiration). There is also a higher risk that animals recovered after assumed death.

I would think that a method not considered suitable for rats would also not be considered suitable for humans.

 

Strange. I would have expected CO2 to be far more uncomfortable than nitrogen, given that, at least as I understand it, the breathing reflex, i.e. a sense of suffocation,  is driven by the concentration of CO2 in the blood rather than the level of oxygen. Have I got this wrong or are there other effects at play? 

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Strange. I would have expected CO2 to be far more uncomfortable than nitrogen, given that, at least as I understand it, the breathing reflex, i.e. a sense of suffocation,  is driven by the concentration of CO2 in the blood rather than the level of oxygen. Have I got this wrong or are there other effects at play? 

This was my confusion as well.  In deep diving, nitrogen narcosis has been described as like being drunk and rather pleasant, hence the slang term "rapture of the deep."  (  @Genady would probably know more about that.)  That led me to think there would be less distress than CO2 or the old gas chamber with cyanide.

Also unclear is how exhaled CO2 is handled with the mask method being used in Bama.  Metabolism is still producing CO2, so it has to go somewhere.

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I would have thought helium would be better, with it being inert.

I think gaseous nitrogen, though not a noble gas, is functionally inert in our respiratory cycle.  

[Genady]

19 minutes ago, TheVat said:

In deep diving, nitrogen narcosis has been described as like being drunk and rather pleasant, hence the slang term "rapture of the deep."  (  @Genady would probably know more about that.)

I've had an experience with the nitrogen narcosis, some myself and more in other divers (students and those I was guiding.) I would not describe it as being drunk, but rather as being euphoric and very unfocused. As the divers ascend and the effect disappears, they often don't have any recollection of what they were doing and what happened while they were affected, similarly to what happens immediately after waking from being sedated by a drug.

[John Cuthber]

They seem to have found a less bad way of doing the wrong thing.

And, among other issues, helium is not a renewable resource.

[Moontanman]

5 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Any thoughts on the potential outcomes this? From what understand, if done correctly with no significant rebreathing of carbon dioxide, they should be unconconcious in a few breathes. If it carries out without incident, the 'cruel and unusual' label won't stand anymore.

I'm not sure I understand the why of this, is the quickness of death, lack of pain, or the cost most important? 

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I'm not sure I understand the why of this, is the quickness of death, lack of pain, or the cost most important? 

Yes, speed and presence of pain. Optimally, one would pass out pretty quickly.

[exchemist]

9 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I'm not sure I understand the why of this, is the quickness of death, lack of pain, or the cost most important? 

Cost is not the issue. It is the unwillingness of any supplier to sell lethal drugs for executions.

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Cost is not the issue. It is the unwillingness of any supplier to sell lethal drugs for executions.

Yes, pursuing non-medical methods keeps that supply chain out of the ethical process.

[Moontanman]

Sounds like they just need to buy a 22 short revolver, double tap to the back of the head Mafia style is quick, easy, cheap, and as painless as dying could be. 

[CharonY]

The issue with rats is that you cannot really ask them how they feel, but folks derive it rom their responses (i.e. heart rate, twitching etc.). In one report (which was used as basis for developing eat euthanasia guidelines) the conclusion was basically

Quote

We conclude that CO₂ effectively produced unconsciousness and euthanasia, but we were unable to ascertain distress. Ar also appears effective but produced hyperreflexia and tachycardia. N₂ was ineffective.

(Shar, Azar and Lawson, J American Assoc for Laboratory Animal Science, 2006)

In another study on mice, argon also caused gasping behaviour, and since it took longer than CO2 was considered a worse alternative.

That being said, I did a quick search and there is a paper from 2019 which does suggest that in mice and in a slower fill scenario N2 exposure resulted in less overall activity. They do mention that further work is needed to figure out its suitability for euthanasia. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210818

That all being said, it really doesn't move the needle on the ethical limits of executions.

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

Strange. I would have expected CO2 to be far more uncomfortable than nitrogen, given that, at least as I understand it, the breathing reflex, i.e. a sense of suffocation,  is driven by the concentration of CO2 in the blood rather than the level of oxygen. Have I got this wrong or are there other effects at play? 

IIRC it was assumed to be driven by a pH shift and associated activation of a fear response pathway in the amygdala. These likely won't activate under nitrogen.

[CharonY]

Quote

The execution took about 22 minutes, and Smith appeared to remain conscious for several minutes. For at least two minutes, he appeared to shake and writhe on the gurney, sometimes pulling against the restraints. That was followed by several minutes of heavy breathing, until breathing was no longer perceptible.

https://apnews.com/article/nitrogen-execution-death-penalty-alabama-699896815486f019f804a8afb7032900

[iNow]

IMO, he was basically suffocated to death.

[TheVat]

@Moontanman suggestion not sounding quite so bad now.  I remember Utah still had the firing squad when Gary Gilmore was executed in 1977.  It's still available there as an option (prisoners can request it).  The doctor pins a paper target where the heart is located and then the team fires.  No one knows for sure who fired the lethal shot.  They don't shoot the head as the disfigurement is considered objectionable. 

And yeah, there would be no supply chain problem in the US getting rifles.  🙄

[StringJunky]

Quote

ATMORE, Alabama, Jan 25 (Reuters) - Alabama on Thursday executed convicted murderer Kenneth Smith, who held his breath in vain as officials asphyxiated him with nitrogen gas, the first use of a new method of capital punishment since lethal injections began in the U.S. four decades ago.
Smith, convicted of a 1988 murder-for-hire, was a rare prisoner who had already survived one execution attempt. In November 2022, Alabama officials aborted his execution by lethal injection after struggling for hours to insert an intravenous line's needle in his body.
The state has called its new closely watched protocol "the most painless and humane method of execution known to man." It predicted Smith would lose consciousness in under a minute and die soon after, although witnesses on Thursday said it appeared to take several minutes longer.
Alabama has touted asphyxiation as a simpler alternative for prison systems that struggle to find either veins or the required drugs for lethal injections.

>>>>Smith appeared to remain conscious for several minutes after the nitrogen was activated, according to five journalists who were allowed to watch the execution through glass as media witnesses. Although the mask was also secured to the gurney, he then began shaking his head and writhing for about two minutes, and then could be seen breathing deeply for several minutes before his breathing slowed and became imperceptible, the witnesses said.
"It appeared that Smith was holding his breath as long as he could," Alabama Corrections Commissioner John Hamm told a press conference. "He struggled against the restraints a little bit but it's an involuntary movement and some agonal breathing. So that was all expected."

https://www.reuters.com/legal/alabama-prepares-carry-out-first-execution-by-nitrogen-asphyxiation-2024-01-25/

This method of strapping a mask to the face doesn't account/contain for unco-operative, voluntary movements.  It's quite possible to hold your breathe for a few minutes.

Edited January 26 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

This rather morbid situation does illuminate a few things, though. First, the process used clearly did not induce unconsciousness immediately and second, death did not occur soon after a minute or so (which is more in line with the animal tests).

Whether the issue is delivery or the process itself might be unclear, but clearly the assumptions did not stand up to empirical evidence.

[Moontanman]

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

@Moontanman suggestion not sounding quite so bad now.  I remember Utah still had the firing squad when Gary Gilmore was executed in 1977.  It's still available there as an option (prisoners can request it).  The doctor pins a paper target where the heart is located and then the team fires.  No one knows for sure who fired the lethal shot.  They don't shoot the head as the disfigurement is considered objectionable. 

And yeah, there would be no supply chain problem in the US getting rifles.  🙄

Exactly... while killing someone is repulsive to me, I think if you are going to do it you kill them as fast and as surely as possible. Nothing is faster or more sure than a double tap to the back of the head. 

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

This method of strapping a mask to the face doesn't account/contain for unco-operative, voluntary movements.  It's quite possible to hold your breathe for a few minutes.

I still have to ask what is the point of this "soft" killing, if I was being killed I'd struggle to the end, bite, scratch, twist, turn, spit and be as obnoxious as possible as i faded away. Why on Earth are we trying to gently kill someone?  

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

This rather morbid situation does illuminate a few things, though. First, the process used clearly did not induce unconsciousness immediately and second, death did not occur soon after a minute or so (which is more in line with the animal tests).

Whether the issue is delivery or the process itself might be unclear, but clearly the assumptions did not stand up to empirical evidence.

I agree and I would sow considerable doubt on the very idea of calmly/gently killing someone. I could see the value in doing it quickly, and if you want it to be a deterrent, publically even but gently... painlessly? Seems a bit oxymoronic doesn't it?  

[dimreepr]

14 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Exactly... while killing someone is repulsive to me, I think if you are going to do it you kill them as fast and as surely as possible. Nothing is faster or more sure than a double tap to the back of the head. 

What's wrong with a pre-op reduction of awareness, before we cut their throat?

[Moontanman]

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What's wrong with a pre-op reduction of awareness, before we cut their throat?

Why bother? Just give them a hot shot of fentanyl, why bother cutting their throat? 

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Why bother? Just give them a hot shot of fentanyl, why bother cutting their throat? 

Bc some of society has to see their revenge, while the rest of us are just happy too see the back of them...

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Bc some of society has to see their revenge, while the rest of us are just happy too see the back of them...

Revenge? I thought we were talking about punishment? Maybe my moral character is flawed but we are talking about killing another human being for punishment right?   

Edited January 26 by Moontanman

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I could see the value in doing it quickly, and if you want it to be a deterrent, publically even but gently... painlessly? Seems a bit oxymoronic doesn't it?  

Well, it is a bit like a bandaid on the moral issue of killing someone who you have full control over. Basically to make it appear humane (I mean, the guillotine was touted as a humane method, too).