Judge ruling could expose who sells execution drugs to Arkansas


[Read the post]


"Just like we make short work of death-row inmates, you can trust us to terminate your baby’s ear infection.


Easy. Split off a reseller shell company that will show on the disclosures, while keeping private its own sources.


I expect to see pro-life demonstrations outside the pharmaceutical company buildings as soon as the information is released.


Crossing my fingers for Martin Shkreli.


Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson is angry about the ruling because the execution drug suppliers were “assured confidentiality.”

So the Governor made a promise he can’t keep, and that kind of stinks, but it’s not the judge’s problem. The manufacturer is going to catch hell from protestors - I hope they have a plan for that.


I hope the drug supplier sues the governor/government and wins, frankly. There’s never any accountability for the individuals in power who make illegal decisions.


I’m not sure I understand who you’re faulting. The governor’s promise wasn’t illegal. The judge just pulled the rug out from under him. Or are you saying the judge’s ruling was illegal?


Some would, actually, especially some catholics.


If the drugs are traced back to a European Union source, that supply chain will dry up as soon as the EU works out who the originating company is. Which will either lead to shortages in US healthcare as export is blocked or prevent the drugs involved from being used for lethal injection as a condition of export.

The only reason that US hospitals have access to Propofol (a very common anaesthetic induction agent) is because Missouri backed down from using it for executions, so the EU allowed exports to continue.


Oh… Well, I was saying that the governor perhaps didn’t have the legal authority to promise confidentiality to the vendor. Isn’t that what the judge ruled? So, I was suggesting that perhaps the drug company has a case against the governor.

I’m anti death penalty and anti secret drugs, just for context.


Hm, you may be right, IANAL, but I’ll go ahead and have opinions anyway.


I thought the pro-lifers loved a good execution? Speaking in general stereotypes, not assuming anything about particular individuals. In fact the few Republicans I know personally are pro-choice (not sure of their stance on the death penalty).


Junkies will assure a supplier anything to get you to sell them more drugs.
Don’t sell to junkies, don’t get burned.

Sell powerful narcotics to medical institutions only. Everyone knows that.


Why are we going through the courts? You mean to tell me the Arkansas government has half decent information security? Somehow I doubt it. I’m sure it got farmed out to the lowest third-party private sector bidder.


I’ve never been able to understand that split. I’m anti death penalty and exercise my legal right not to be involved in terminations of pregnancies. I’ve just never been able to bring myself to be involved in killing something / a potential someone that is capable of reacting by trying to move away from the sucker, any more than I’d want to execute someone … :anguished:

That’s a minority pro-life stance that usually has me catching ire from both sides.


I have always found that split to be strange as well.


Price the drugs so high no state can afford to execute…
Everybody Wins!


I feel that if it’s her choice to end the pregnancy, as long as other providers are available, it’s fair for a provider to make the choice for themselves.

I believe in choice, but I don’t think anyone here would fault you for that stance.

(Of course an idiot could walk right up and prove me wrong. sigh)


Abortion is legal and Family Planning services are free and widely available everywhere I’ve practiced. I think that the UK and NZ rules provide a happy medium between two extreme positions.

Because there is a conscience clause in the UK and NZ abortion acts, those of us who don’t wish to be involved only have to make the schedulers know of our stance and don’t get rostered for that work. In the exercise of conscientious objection, the legal requirement in the UK is that I would refer to another practitioner; in NZ that I inform the patient that the service can and must be obtained from another practitioner. On the rare occasions that it has come up I’ve followed the law to the letter.

But if you really believe in choice, you also need to accept that you can’t force a practitioner to do something for or to you against their will, without slipping into tyranny by virtue of the threat. Whether or not another provider is available. The only time that I could be required to anaesthetise for (or perform) a termination is if the pregnancy is immediately and directly threatening the mother’s life and I am the only practitioner available. Which I wouldn’t have any conscientious objection to in any case.