Veterinarians Unwillingly Drawn into Death Penalty Debate
You may be aware that the Supreme Court of the United States recently considered whether execution by lethal injection violates the constitution’s clause prohibiting cruel and unusual punishments (the court ruled that lethal injections are not unconstitutional). Veterinarians are notoriously apolitical and adverse to conflict, so it surprised me to find out that veterinary euthanasia guidelines had been cited in the arguments against lethal injection in humans.
A news story in the December 15, 2007 Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) brought the matter to the attention of veterinarians nationwide. The story sparked a frenzy of introspection among veterinarians, as well as a few letters to the editor of JAVMA. From the original article:
The high court agreed to hear the appeal of two Kentucky inmates suing the state over its three-drug lethal injection procedure, saying it causes unnecessary pain and suffering. Unwillingly caught up in the debate is the [American Veterinary Medical Association], whose Guidelines on Euthanasia are cited by lethal injection opponents arguing that even veterinarians won’t submit their animal patients to the same deadly cocktail used on condemned criminals.
The AVMA’s euthanasia guidelines were developed to help ensure that animals’ lives are ended in the kindest and most humane manner possible. And it is true that the drug cocktail used to execute criminals would, if used on a pet, violate the guidelines.
But I must confess that, like many veterinarians, I could live without the controversy. If I had wanted to get drawn into this debate, I would have become a lawyer.
You have questions. 
Veterinary Claims a Distortion of Reality: Human Lethal Injection
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info, below
Within the death penalty debate, there is an allegation that veterinarians are prohibited from using pancuronium bromide or Pavulon, the paralyzing agent used in human lethal injection, because it may cause and/or mask pain to the animals, within the euthanasia process.
It is also stated that vets are prohibited from using potassium chloride, the heart stooping drug, used thirdly, in the three drug human lethal injection protocol.
In turn, this is used as a new anti death penalty sound bite - “It is too cruel for animals, but we use it on people.”
First, the The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) recommendations of 2000 (1) , inadvertently, support the human lethal injection protocol — the opposite of what the detractors have been claiming.
AVMA: “When used alone, these drugs (paralytics) all cause respiratory arrest before loss of consciousness, so the animal may perceive pain and distress after it is immobilized.” (2)
Obviously, no state, which practices human lethal injection, uses a paralytic without an anaesthetic – EVER. The anesthesia is always used first. It appears that these absurd claims, falsely attributed to veterinary literature, have been a bald faced lie by anti death penalty activists.
To claim that paralytics are condemned in veterinary euthanasia, without mentioning the specific context, is an intentional deception. (The AVMA does not mention the specific paralytic used in lethal injection for humans).
Secondly, if properly anesthetized, as in human lethal injection, there would be no pain experienced when using Pavulon. That is also well known.
Thirdly, in Belgium and the Netherlands, their euthanasia protocol is as follows: A coma is first induced by intravenous administration of 20 mg/kg sodium thiopental (Nesdonal) (NOTE-the first drug in human lethal injection) in a small volume (10 ml physiological saline). Then a triple intravenous dose of a non-depolarizing neuromuscular muscle relaxant is given, such as 20 mg pancuronium bromide (Pavulon) (NOTE-the second drug, the paralytic, in human lethal injection) or 20 mg vecuronium bromide (Norcuron). The muscle relaxant should preferably be given intravenously, in order to ensure optimal availability. Only for pancuronium bromide (Pavulon) are there substantial indications that the agent may also be given intramuscularly in a dosage of 40 mg.(3)
Just like execution, lethal injection in the US, although we give a third drug which speeds up death.
Fourth, the AVMA, similarly, prohibits the use of potassium chloride, “WHEN USED ALONE”. (4) (my capitalization for emphasis).
Of course, human lethal injection uses the two previously mentioned drugs, prior to injection of the potassium chloride – it is never used alone. This is well known, as well, thereby revealing more deceptions by the anti death penalty cabal.
Fourth,, the AVMA, specifically, cautions (5):
“1. The guidelines in this report are in no way intended to be used for human lethal injection.
2. The application of a barbiturate, paralyzing agent, and potassium chloride delivered in separate
syringes or stages (the common method used for human lethal injection) is not cited in the report.
3. The report never mentions pancuronium bromide or Pavulon, the paralyzing agent used in human
lethal injection.”
Obviously, the AVMA is saying DON’T use our report to draw any inferences with regard to the human lethal injection protocol. Of course, death penalty opponents decided to ignore that responsible request.
The AVMA continues:
“Before referring to the 2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia, please contact the AVMA to ensure the association’s position is stated correctly. Please contact Michael San Filippo, media relations assistant at the AVMA, at 847-285-6687 (office), 847-732-6194 (cell) or msanfilippo(at)avma.org for more information or to set up an interview with a veterinary expert.” (5)
Death penalty opponents ignored that request, as well.
Based upon this literature, it is clear that this veterinary nonsense was another anti death penalty fraud, which, sadly and often, escaped media fact checking, but not media repetition.
The AVMA approves of “potassium chloride in conjunction with prior general anesthesia” (6) for animals – this is the drug protocol used within most lethal injection protocols, with the exception of the paralytic used in between.
This actually shows support for the human lethal injection protocol, however unintended.
First, this two drug protocol is approved by AVMA, for animals.
Secondly, a disadvantage listed by AVMA for potassium chloride is “clonic spams” (7) – rapid and violent jerking of muscles soon after injection of the potassium. The paralytic drug, used second, within the human lethal injection protocol, helps to reduce, or eliminate, this effect.
In other words, a review of the AVMA literature finds much support, however inadvertent, for the human lethal injection protocol and nothing that conflicts with or condemns it.
Hopefully, this newest, blatant distortion by the anti death penalty crowd will soon fade.
———————-
Veterinary use of sodium pentobarbital
“Pentobarbital is a barbiturate that is available as both a free acid and a sodium salt, the former of which is only slightly soluble in water and ethanol.” (8) (NOTE — I don’t believe this is used for human lethal injection).
“Veterinary medicine
In veterinary medicine sodium pentobarbital—traded under names such as Sagatal—is used as an anaesthetic.UBC Committee on Animal Care (2005). Euthanasia. SOP 009E1 – euthanasia – overdose with pentobarbital. The University of British Columbia. URL accessed on 4 October, 2005. Pentobarbital is an ingredient in Equithesin.” (7)
“Veterinary Euthanasia
It is used by itself, or more often in combination with complementary agents such as phenytoin, in commercial animal euthanasia (2003). ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA. Animal Use Protocols. University of Virginia. URL accessed on 4 October, 2005. injectable solutions. Trade names include Euthasol, Euthatal, Beuthanasia-D and Fatal Plus. “(7)
1) www(dot)avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf
Appendix 1, page 693
2) www(dot)avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf
Appendix 4, page 696
3)http://wweek.com/___ALL_OLD_HTML/euthanasics.html
4) www(dot)avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf
Page 681
5) www(dot)avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf
Cover Page
6) www(dot)avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf
Page 680
7) www(dot)avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf
Page 681
8) http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Pentobarbital
copyright 2005-2008 Dudley Sharp
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O’Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
Pro death penalty sites
homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx
www(dot)dpinfo.com
www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
joshmarquis(dot)blogspot.com/
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_contents.htm (Sweden)
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or part, is approved, with proper attribution.
It was bound to happen: animals and humans are used in comparison in strange manners all the time. We dress them in silly costumes, give them
bios now, project human qualities and insights by
our own thought processes. They can’t vote (yet) nor do we actively address their abortion rights.
When they start owning property is the expected
competition adjustment toward humans to be
realized. Would animals, for example, desire the indiscriminate act of euthanizing helpless creatures in the manner we do?
Just to address a couple of points-
Deborah – unfortunately, animals being considered as anything that would compromise human societal convenience is a long way off… animals owning property? They have to stop being considered property in order to own it. Animals are property in all 50 states, and if that status were to change, it would require the cession of all animal experimentation, animal food industries and animal control/sheltering policies that involve euthanasia. It would also deeply affect “ownership” of companion animals. As a society we are too wrapped up in our own consumeristic and capitalistic views to ever allow animals a change in status. It would require more introspection and acknowledgement of institutional cruelty than we are capable of accepting. The repercussions of acknowledging that animals have any inherent rights independent of what humans may grant them at their discretion would cause too much discomfort.
As for Dr. Barchas – no sympathy here with regards to getting involved in a political battle. The role of the veterinarian is a professional one that affects millions of lives annually. Even more so, the Hippocratic Oath does not apply to veterinarians, thus granting a power beyond doctors to treat and to kill. If you cannot accept the magnitude of that role and responsibility (as well as the inherent hypocrisy), then perhaps you should get a job in as a sales clerk or something. Veterinarians need to be in the forefront of the introspection necessary for the way humans treat living beings and assist others in bridging that gap between animal and human treatment. They are often the only professional voice that will be heard that can speak on behalf of their patients… But then, you might expose yourself to some risk – and you don’t want that controversy, do you?
Alison,
Apparently you missed the jist of both my and the veterinarian’s posting.
If I may impose: The vet was stating that he, along with other professionals, are brought into political battlegrounds not indicative to the science of their profession, i.e. “I became a vet to treat animals and not to wage political wars”.
I was obviously being sarcastic with my remark that pets would own property. My own dog does however claim the couch as her own and I do give her full legal claim.
My point is this: Dogs and cats are animals and not entilted to the legal systems humans created.
It seems odd to me that human rights and animal rights’ arguments are even compared in this manner. I say let a dog be a dog and a human be a human. It is ridiculous to add apples and oranges. I do not think that gives us rights to mistreat our animals or to somehow minimize their needs. I mean only that we have a different label for good reasons.
im really confused after reading that article… are they for or against euthanasia?
when within reason, i think its the right thing to do. and if it were up to me, euthanasia would be an option for humans too. why suffer?
but im for the death penalty, so thats just my opinion.
Ahsley: veterinarians, like all people, have their own individual opinions about the death penalty. What we object to, exactly as Deborah points out, is being drawn into a political debate that has no bearing whatsoever upon our training or profession.
Alison, the following statement makes no sense to me: “Even more so, the Hippocratic Oath does not apply to veterinarians, thus granting a power beyond doctors to treat and to kill. If you cannot accept the magnitude of that role and responsibility (as well as the inherent hypocrisy), then perhaps you should get a job in as a sales clerk or something.” Veterinarians have a unique veterinary oath that is separate from the Hippocratic Oath. It mentions nothing about veterinary involvement in complex human ethical matters.
Furthermore, your vituperous comments are inappropriate for this blog. I would like to remind all readers that this blog is intended to be an outlet for civil discourse on matters related to animal and veterinary news and issues. Those of you who wish to insult others should seek a different venue–the internet is rife with them.
I agree with Dr. Barchas on this matter. Freedom of speech is a great right but comments should be free of insult. Controversy is great but comments should be civil, polite, and respectful of all.
Please let me emphasize that controversy and diverse viewpoints are welcome! But please refrain from writing insulting comments.
I don’t think veterinarians are being drawn into the debate as much as guidelines for euthanasia are. Human medicine often borrows from veterinary medical research and vice versa. Veteriarians have researched, debated, and legislated a humane form of euthanasia. It appears to me, from what I read, that the human method did not undergo the same amount of thought. I see no reason why the judicial community cannot review the veterinary guidelines. In my opinion, having used all of the lethal injection drugs in veterinary anesthesia, I do think it is a cruel and inhumane method that they use to execute criminals.