Slashdot Mirror
Pfizer Blocks The Use Of Its Drugs In Executions
HughPickens.com writes: Erik Eckholm reports in the NYT that the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer has announced that it has imposed sweeping controls on the distribution of its products to ensure that none are used in lethal injections, a step that closes off the last remaining open-market source of drugs used in executions. "Pfizer makes its products to enhance and save the lives of the patients we serve," the company says, and "strongly objects to the use of its products as lethal injections for capital punishment." "With Pfizer's announcement, all F.D.A.-approved manufacturers of any potential execution drug have now blocked their sale for this purpose," says Maya Foa. "Executing states must now go underground if they want to get hold of medicines for use in lethal injection." The mounting difficulty in obtaining lethal drugs has already caused states to furtively scramble for supplies. Some states have used straw buyers or tried to import drugs from abroad that are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration, only to see them seized by federal agents. Other states have experimented with new drug combinations, sometimes with disastrous results, such as the prolonged execution of Joseph Wood in Arizona in 2014, using the sedative midazolam. A few states have adopted the electric chair, firing squad or gas chamber as an alternative if lethal drugs are not available. Since Utah chooses to have a death penalty, "we have to have a means of carrying it out," said State Representative Paul Ray as he argued last year for authorization of the firing squad.
They don't actually care if the subject is in pain, they just want the appearance of them being in pain.
You have no idea whatsoever of what you're talking about.
WOW
Is this what you do? Whenever you are confronted with an opposing point of view you put on your blinders, ignore the other point of view, and recite your simple toy version of a point of view? Why do you bother responding? Do you think you're doing some kind of good deed by evangelizing your dogma? You are making absolutely no effort to reach the other side. You are simply wasting your time mentally masturbating and giving yourself credit for human interaction.
You're a joke. Really.
If you think a corporation like Pfizer is comparable to any small business you have a serious problem with your ability to think. Like cognitive dysfunction.
Have you never noticed that patterns take on unique characteristics as they scale? Are you seriously denying this fundamental law of reality?
Get help.
Is this what you do?
You asked a snarky, ignorant question intended to push some agenda of yours that characterizes the people who own and run businesses as being unable to have feelings. That was an absurd posture on your part. I gave you something to react to. Feel free, instead of resorting to lazy ad hominem, to point out where in the chain of events you just read the transition occurs to the person running a business no longer being able to have feelings. Be specific, or consider no longer trying to paint that whiny Corporations Are Evil Robots image you were lamely hoping to get across.
If you think a corporation like Pfizer is comparable to any small business you have a serious problem with your ability to think
So, at what point do the people running the business stop being people? Be specific. Is it when the company is made of 2 people? 20? 200? 2,000? 20,000? Be specific about the number, and by what mechanism you think that the people making the decisions are no longer themselves, no longer able to consider their values, and no longer have feelings. Explain why one person LESS than the size you think is some robotic non-feeling entity is still able to have feelings, but one person MORE than that number no longer is. Talk about what happens when that one extra person comes on board. No, really. See if you can coherently explain your theory, and how it applies to one person more, and less than the number that you think scales human decision making from one mode to another.
The truth is, you don't even know anybody who has successfully launched and grown a business to the point where there are hundreds or thousands of people involved. Because you can't rely on a personal experience of having sat down and actually talked to someone like that, you're conjuring up a fantasy notion of who they become, so that you have something abstract to hate, since that what makes you tick. That whole "get help" BS? It's called "projection," dude. Look it up.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I can't believe people think like you. Well i can but i just don't understand how they haven't killed themselves already from other stupid and illogical thinking.
Murdering someone is the unjustified taking of their life. An execution or even self defense killing only shares the taking of life portion. In other words the difference between an execution and murder is whether or not it was justified. It certainly does not turn executioners into murderers.
And before you argue about justify, the state determines that. With a big and powerful government, you don't get that ability to define justified. You only get the ability to protest their definitions.
This is a giant strawman. The vast majority of criminals are not Jeffrey Dahlmer and are not serving a life sentence.
Luckily, we are talking about the death penalty. None of the criminals on death row are serving a life sentence, either: they are serving a death sentence and awaiting execution.
This means that for MOST inmates the prison system is there to rehabilitate them to society.
No. It is there so that they can visibly be penalized for their crimes, to the benefit of society as a whole. They serve as negative examples.
We kind of don't give a rats ass about what does or does not happen after they have served their sentence. They can choose to avail themselves of what resources are available (generally, support up through a bachelor's degree), so that they have some chance of coping once they are released. Or they can choose not to do so.
If you look at actual data and charts on reconviction rates you'll note they go up as the length of the sentence goes up.
Correlation is not causation.
Perhaps people who are given longer penalties are more prone to commit crimes, thus deserving those longer penalties. In other words: it's the person who causes their own recidivism, and not the length of time they spend in prison on prior convictions.
The numbers you supplied do not account for that.