Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

The actual name of the suicide pod I was thinking about is the Sarco pod, which yes, uses nitrogen to induce inert gas asphyxiation. There's no sense of panic, no pain, it basically just knocks you unconscious and that's that. Most reaction that's been noted is a bit of dizziness, it's one of the most humane and consistent ways of assisted suicide we're aware of.

[Grim Portent]

Yeah, there are other gases that can be used to kill people, but nitrogen is the only one that lacks obvious side effects to my knowledge. Body just isn't set up to detect it, it's largely inert so it doesn't mess with our body chemistry. No turning your blood acidic or making your kidneys shut down or whatever. You just get less and less oxygen and your brains eventually stops. Could do the same with the noble gases probably, but it'd be impractical.

IIRC it's used to kill farmed mice as well.


Overdose of some drugs would be fairly painless too wouldn't it? Long as we're spitballing ideas. What side effects are there to a morphine overdose?

[Sirus]

The issue I see with using drugs is that everyone is going to react differently, with some people having tolerances or allergies that would make the process a good deal less clean. In contrast, everyone is going to have more or less the same reaction to nitrogen asphyxiation (namely, slowly getting tired and passing out without bodily functions going haywire).

[Travis Bickle]

I've read the guillotine is actually less painful than the leathel injection that is standard practice in the US states which have death penalties.

I imagine you don't feel much for very long with the guillotine. Lethal injection is supposed to be painless with the initial dose of an anesthetic which is meant to render the executed unconscious, but in practice that doesn't always occur. It doesn't help that executioners are by and large not well-trained anesthesiologists. Frankly, I think I'd rather try my luck with the firing squad.

That could also be bullshit, because...well it makes the death penalty sound scarier, which is what everyone wants.

Though a lot of people vehemently for the death-penalty may be rather more in favour of an 'unkind' method. If you explained to them that the guillotine is pretty much instantaneous (give or take those few moments where the head might be able to blink or mouth something - as reported, at least), that kind of person may well decide that they'd prefer feeding feet-first into an industrial-grade salami-slicer instead.

The entire current paradigm of the death penalty relies on it being (or at least looking) as quick and painless as possible. People get emotional when they're talking about pedophiles or drug pushers, but pretty much no-one actually wants to bring back crucifixion.

there's some form of asphyxiation used for euthanasia in parts of europe (I forget the details, but I think it involves methane or something; give a google for suicide pods, iirc) that is literally painless, on top of being quick and cheap. It's not available for use in the US mostly because the companies involved in producing it refuse to sell when the purpose for its use is state sanctioned murder.

LOL

[Frumple]

There's a pretty significant difference between assisted suicide done with the consent and request of the person dying, and an execution, yes. One is in fact not like the other.

[Grim Portent]

Indeed. I'd quite like to be euthanised should I begin to suffer from dementia or alzheimers myself. Not gotten around to a will yet, young enough it's not urgent, but I've seen what happens when your mind starts to go with age and I want none of it for myself or my relatives.

I do not however, support the death penalty. While there are a small number of people I think deserve to die, Ted Bundy type people, I'm not comfortable with the error margins in convictions, so better to just lock that small number up for the rest of their lives in case a mistake was made.

[martinuzz]

In the Netherlands, where euthanasia is legal in some circumstances, doctors first use lidocaïne, a strong painkiller, to prevent pain.
Then they use either thiopental or propofol to induce a deep coma. This is purposedly overdosed much.

Then the doctor will check if a deep coma has indeed been reached, with various checks including the (eye)lash reflex test.

Often, the coma is already sufficient to induce death. To be sure, a muscle relaxant is injected, which will stop the respiration and consequently the heart.

I do not however, support the death penalty. While there are a small number of people I think deserve to die, Ted Bundy type people, I'm not comfortable with the error margins in convictions, so better to just lock that small number up for the rest of their lives in case a mistake was made.

+1

[EuchreJack]

I've read the guillotine is actually less painful than the leathel injection that is standard practice in the US states which have death penalties.

I imagine you don't feel much for very long with the guillotine. Lethal injection is supposed to be painless with the initial dose of an anesthetic which is meant to render the executed unconscious, but in practice that doesn't always occur. It doesn't help that executioners are by and large not well-trained anesthesiologists. Frankly, I think I'd rather try my luck with the firing squad.

Anyone with a medical license can't be anywhere near an execution, as an execution violates their oath.

[Frumple]

That is... quite untrue. It's literally required by some states that maintain the practice, where it's no legal concern for maintaining or obtaining a medical license.

The Hippocratic oath (and pretty much everything similar to it) is generally just horseshit words, non-binding and unenforceable, regardless, if that was even what you're talking about. It's ethical guidelines, not a binding oath, and there's been precious few points in history it was anything other than that. Iirc it's not even part of training in plenty of places, these days.

The actual binding part of the license involves issues of medical malpractice, and what constitutes that... is decided by the state. If the state says executing people on their command doesn't constitute that, it doesn't constitute that.

E: It'd be a damn different word if those oaths meant anything more than the air that produced them, really. Almost certainly a better one, too

[Lord Shonus]

Considering that the Hippocratic Oath explicitly bans surgery, it would very much not be better.

[Random_Dragon]

To be fair, back when the phrase was coined surgery was a bit of a riskier affair than they are these days. Most cultures did have at least some idea of how to handle the basics of it (trauma surgery in particular is one thing humans got good at pretty damn early), but if you did catch an infection you were basically on your own. If your only real option was preventing an infection in the first place, most surgical procedures end up being not worth the risk.

This concludes your daily dose of random historical musings.

[EuchreJack]

That is... quite untrue. It's literally required by some states that maintain the practice, where it's no legal concern for maintaining or obtaining a medical license.

The Hippocratic oath (and pretty much everything similar to it) is generally just horseshit words, non-binding and unenforceable, regardless, if that was even what you're talking about. It's ethical guidelines, not a binding oath, and there's been precious few points in history it was anything other than that. Iirc it's not even part of training in plenty of places, these days.

The actual binding part of the license involves issues of medical malpractice, and what constitutes that... is decided by the state. If the state says executing people on their command doesn't constitute that, it doesn't constitute that.

E: It'd be a damn different word if those oaths meant anything more than the air that produced them, really. Almost certainly a better one, too

That is quite untrue.
We had an article somewhere on these forums about just how medical professionals in some states couldn't do the lethal injections.
There is also the fact that medical professionals would very much like to have their license be transferable to another state, especially if they're bottom-of-the-barrel scum.  Involvement in public executions...that is too obvious.

Also:
Today, the AMA Code of Medical Ethics speaks directly to a physician’s ethical responsibility when it comes to capital punishment stating, in part, that “as a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, a physician must not participate in a legally authorized execution.”

[Robsoie]

Considering that the Hippocratic Oath explicitly bans surgery, it would very much not be better.

There have been plenty of more or less modern revisions and special (to specific medical schools) version of this oath, most do not ban surgery.

[EuchreJack]

Considering that the Hippocratic Oath explicitly bans surgery, it would very much not be better.

There have been plenty of more or less modern revisions and special (to specific medical schools) version of this oath, most do not ban surgery.

It's also a mistranslation, as the actuals words apparently are:
I will not use the knife, not even, verily, on sufferers from stone, but I will give place to such as are craftsmen therein.

AKA: General doctors shouldn't perform surgery, instead letting specialists in surgery do that work.

However, I did like the part about having to teach relatives of their teacher how to be doctors without cost.  Talk about stuff that got edited out over the years....

[scriver]

Is stone kidney stones?