PDA

View Full Version : Painless execution



smokinindausa
04-03-2005, 03:45 AM
I'm sure all of you are tired as hell of this whole Terry Shiavo thing, but it does raise an interesting topic. The best way to kill someone. Most states, and I'm sure other countries use things like lethal injection, electric chair, firing squad, and (god forbid) hanging. While some may think that these are painless, there are many records of botched executions where the subject went through much pain before death. One man was electrocuted 8 times, during which blood was gushing from under his hood, and he was screaming in agony.

An answer to all this madness?

It's called nitrogen asphyxiation. It's the only proven painless way to execute someone. When you suffocate normally, be it drowning or just in an atmosphere with no oxygen, the burning pain you feel is a toxic buildup of carbon dioxide. Howver, if one was to enter a pure nitrogen atmosphere , the oxygen would leave the body, but no carbon dioxide would replace it. There fore, the subject simply falls into sleep, kind of like when the dentist gives you that fun gas.

My question is, why do states still use these awful methods of execution? And why didn't they do this to Terry and others like her, instead of starving?

I'd love some answers.

Dick Justice
04-03-2005, 03:46 AM
ROCK TO FACE
ROCK TO FACE

givemesomeweed
04-03-2005, 03:52 AM
The goverment puts people in jail for murdering other people. But what the fuck did the goverment think they were doing with Terry shiavo.

juggalo420
04-03-2005, 04:21 AM
terry shiavo wasnt executed, her feeding tube was taken out in accordance to her wishes. and euthanasia is illegal in the u.s so they couldnt have given her nitrogen asphyxiation.

i dont think the goverment should execute anyone, i dont think they have the authority morally to determine who lives and who dies. just keep the criminal in jail until they are safe to release or if they cant be rehabilitated just let them die in jail.

we need euthanasia in this country, so the terminally ill who are in constant pain can have the choice if they wish to end there suffering, but the christian right would rather have 'em just deal with their suffering because they think it would offend the big fictional man in the sky aka god

del...
04-03-2005, 04:46 AM
nitrogen asphyxiation??? ever hear of the bends? not a good way to go.

Edgar
04-03-2005, 04:47 AM
Starving/dehydrating someone to death is just a long drawnout and barbaric form of euthanasia, therefore it should be especially illegal...

juggalo420
04-03-2005, 04:56 AM
Starving/dehydrating someone to death is just a long drawnout and barbaric form of euthanasia, therefore it should be especially illegal...
euthanasia would mean direct assistance in someones death (shooting 'em up, or giving sum pills), pulling a feeding tube out is passively allowing someone to die (their dying on their own, its no ones fault they cant feed themselves)

A Foo Says
04-03-2005, 05:02 AM
I read on rednova.com about starving.

Starving is a natural part of many organisms life, so in the final stages of starvation, the body releases chemicals that produce natural euphoria, allowing the starved to slip into death easily. Natures natural euthanasia

Edgar
04-03-2005, 05:08 AM
Oh come on! They both have the same result, so tell me, why should somone have to take two weeks to die, when we can take them out in minutes?

Besides the actual definition of euthanasia is: The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.

juggalo420
04-03-2005, 05:13 AM
Oh come on! They both have the same result, so tell me, why should somone have to take two weeks to die, when we can take them out in minutes?

the religious right, its there fault.

Epic
04-03-2005, 05:23 AM
How about a heroin OD? Or opium or some other painkiller?

A Foo Says
04-03-2005, 05:25 AM
Oh come on! They both have the same result, so tell me, why should somone have to take two weeks to die, when we can take them out in minutes?

Besides the actual definition of euthanasia is: The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.


I was just saying that starvation has been one of natures natural way for the weak etc to die, so the body has built in process to make this less barbaric/painful as it seems, once i find the article i'll post it <3

Stedric
04-03-2005, 05:28 AM
I don't personally believe in Capital Punishment just because there is so much potential for innocent people to lose their lives (1 in 3 men sentenced to death in Michigan were later proven innocent).

Heroin OD actually sounds like an OK way to go if you have to die. I mean, I'd never touch the stuff...but if I was gonna die anyways? Hmm....

smokinindausa
04-03-2005, 05:36 AM
This thread isn't really about euthanasia. I'm just saying that since executions DO happen, and innocent people DO get executed, why not put forth some effort for a painless death like nitrogen asphixiation? And to del...., death would come long before any form of the bends was shown, and it wouldn't really be a chanber, it would be like a face-mask, so your body wouldn't be in the nitrogen atmosphere. And i know you would rather have that done to you than be electrocuted.

Edgar
04-03-2005, 05:48 AM
np A foo says, i was actually responding to what juggalo said not you.

A Foo Says
04-03-2005, 05:49 AM
Np Edgar :), i'm sure other people were wondering the same thing as I thought you were though, so why not post? <3

smokinindausa
04-03-2005, 06:01 AM
A Foo Says, i bet if you were being starved to death you wouldn't think that way. Evolution passes down the traits for a species to survive, not die easier. just because it's natural doesnt mean that somehow organisms have evolved to feel less pain.

EverydayJunglist
04-03-2005, 06:12 AM
A Foo Says, i bet if you were being starved to death you wouldn't think that way. Evolution passes down the traits for a species to survive, not die easier. just because it's natural doesnt mean that somehow organisms have evolved to feel less pain.

to not die easy,IS to survive.It's believable.you can relate the subject to weed strains nowadays are much more potent/and resistant because of evolution.Thus,why not have a built up "euphoria gland" to be released when your gonna die,as a result of human evolution.
peace

smokinindausa
04-03-2005, 06:18 AM
You dont understand how evolution works. It's all about passing your genes to to next generation. This means all the traits an organism has before it mates/passes on genetic material are the only ones that matter. Some kind of euphoria or painlessness while dying would have no reason to be passed down the evolutionary chain. Because the ones dying, are not the ones mating. Trust me, dying sucks, unless you get crushed by a 100-ton freight container, it's gonna freakin' hurt.

llamaman666
04-03-2005, 09:44 AM
I am against the death penalty. I think it gives them no chance to redeem themselves. and as sedric says, many are later proven innocent. almos TEN PERCENT nation wide. and they do it by od of potasium which stops the heart, no other way is legal in the US. It is said to be near painless as the heart completely stops so you do not suffer the pain of a heart atack. But it is still not a good idea.

420ultimatesmokage
04-03-2005, 09:45 AM
nitrogen asphyxiation??? ever hear of the bends? not a good way to go.

the bends is nitrogen decompresion. nitrogen that is compressed into your bloodstream caused by high pressure then a sudden decompression which leads your blood to bubble. thats not the same thing nitrogen asphyxiation which is lack of oxygen due to there only being nitrogen in the room.

Epic
04-03-2005, 04:17 PM
Potassium in the bloodstream? Holy fuck....

Toffee
04-03-2005, 04:50 PM
jump off a cliff for heaven's sake

EverydayJunglist
04-03-2005, 07:16 PM
You dont understand how evolution works. It's all about passing your genes to to next generation. This means all the traits an organism has before it mates/passes on genetic material are the only ones that matter. Some kind of euphoria or painlessness while dying would have no reason to be passed down the evolutionary chain. Because the ones dying, are not the ones mating. Trust me, dying sucks, unless you get crushed by a 100-ton freight container, it's gonna freakin' hurt.
No,I dont think you understand.After breeding of many generations for humans,certain traits,the positive ones,are utilized.Then each generations grows stronget and more resistant.Like a marijuana plant.Thus making it believeable that naturalyy over time,us as humans,have developed something that makes death a less painful experience.Thats what i was tring to say last night,but i was sloshed.It's only 3Pm now,so i haven't broken into the cabinet yet.Cheers

A Foo Says
04-03-2005, 07:21 PM
Having a gland that releases chemicals to make us not feel pain whilst starving is a good tool, that way the animal doesn't focus on the pains and can't do anything. Feeling euphoria, my guess would give the animal a few more days to find food, or allow it to slip peacefully.