Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Veterinary Claims a Distortion of Reality: Human Lethal Injection

Veterinary Claims a Distortion of Reality: Human Lethal Injection
Dudley Sharp

Within the death penalty debate, there is an allegation that veterinarians are prohibited from using pancuronium bromide or Pavulon, the relaxant 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.

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, the AVMA, similarly, prohibits the use of potassium chloride, "WHEN USED ALONE". (3) (my capitalization for emphasis).

Of course, human lethal injection uses the two previously mentioned drugs, prior to injection of the potassium chloride. This is well known, as well, thereby revealing more deceptions by the anti death penalty cabal.

Fourth,, the AVMA, specifically, cautions (4):"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) for more information or to set up an interview with a veterinary expert." (4)

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" (5) 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" (6) -- 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." (7) (NOTE -- I don't believe this is used for human lethal injection).

In veterinary medicine sodium pentobarbital--traded under names such as Sagatal--is used as ananaesthetic.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)

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)


Physicians & The State Execution of Murderers: No Ethical/Medical Dilemma


The AVMA has re-written parts of the referenced articles (footnotes 1-6, below).

Now located at

Please note their CAUTION, just below the title page, miroirs my complaints, herein,  against the anti death penalty folks,

I haven't redone my footnotes to match up with the changes. Why bother? The anti death penalty folks and the non fact checkers in the media haven't cared about reality for those years, since 2004.

Why would they start, now?

1) www(dot) Appendix 1, page 693

2) www(dot) Appendix 4, page 696

3) www(dot) Page 681

4) www(dot) Cover Page

5) www(dot) Page 680

6) www(dot) Page 681


Victim's Voices - These are the murder victims

copyright 2005-2012 Dudley Sharp

Sunday, December 04, 2011


Dudley Sharp, contact info below

When Gov. Kitzhaber decided to stop executions, his leadership involved presenting 11 points, none of which explained his reasoning for his action.

Gov. Kitzhaber failed to tell us why the death penalty was "morally wrong" and "unjust", the only claims from his statement (1) that might explain his personal decision to quash his official responsibility and his violation of the a public trust, whereby he committed "to uphold the law and could not and would not intervene" in executions.

None of his other "reasons" justify his moratorium on executions, either (1).

After wading through the chaff, the governor's statement is, really, just this:

"I don't like the death penalty. I don't care what the victim survivors or the courts say. I am stopping executions because I think it morally wrong, although I won't tell you why."

To review, point by point:

1) Gov. Kitzhaber: " I do not believe that those (two prior) executions made us safer; . . .".

Reply: Governor, living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers. This is an unchallenged truism, with the obvious example of Gary Haugen, who was sent to Oregon prison for one murder and then murdered, again, in prison. Astounding that the governor did not see both the irony and the fallacy of his position, with that one example, staring the governor in the face - this spared repeat murderer, now spared, again.

In, at least three ways, the death penalty and executions protect innocents to a higher degree than life imprisonment; Enhanced incapacitation, as discussed above; enhanced due process, which provides greater protections for actually innocent defendants and enhanced deterrence, as all prospects of sanction deter some and life is much preferred over death, not only by criminals and potential criminals, but by all of us (2).

2) Gov. Kitzhaber: " . . . certainly (executions) did not make us nobler as a society."

Reply: Support for the death penalty is based in justice, the same foundation of support for all legal sanctions. Is there a more noble goal than justice? Unlikely.

3) Gov. Kitzhaber: ".. . I simply cannot participate once again in something I believe to be morally wrong."

Reply: The governor never tells us why execution is morally wrong, when that is the sole reason he gives for his decision. Everything else is just claptrap. He did not have enough respect for the murder victims, their survivors, all of those who worked so hard on the cases or for the citizens of Oregon, to explain his moral reasoning. This blatant omission reeks of both contempt and self importance.


4) Gov. Kitzhaber: "The families and friends of victims deserve certainty that justice will be carried out on behalf of the loved ones who have been taken from them in such a cruel fashion."

Reply: The governor's decision improves neither justice nor certainty, but does enhance the cruelty to the victim survivors, who have already suffered way too much.

5) Gov. Kitzhaber: "But the nature of their crimes was not different from other murderers, some of whom are sentenced to death but never executed and others who are sentenced to life in prison." "It is not applied equally to all."

Reply: Governor, that is the case with all crimes and all punishments, as you and all Oregon citizens know. Rape can bring probation or a life sentence, just as all similar crimes may result in vastly different sanctions.

6) Gov. Kitzhaber: "Oregonians have a fundamental belief in fairness and justice – in swift and certain justice. The death penalty as practiced in Oregon is neither fair nor just; and it is not swift or certain."

Reply: The governor offers no reason why the death penalty is unjust and by his decision, he knowingly made justice less swift and less certain in death penalty cases. His position is that because we cannot have justice in every case, we must do away with justice in all cases. Almost every argument that the governor uses against the death penalty he could just as easily have used against life imprisonment or other sanctions.

7) Gov. Kitzhaber: "The only factor that determines whether someone sentenced to death in Oregon is actually executed is that they volunteer. The hard truth is that in the 27 years since Oregonians reinstated the death penalty, it has only been carried out on two volunteers who waived their rights to appeal."

Reply: All criminals have the opportunity to waive their appeals and to serve their sentence without further legal challenge. This is to the common good of both Oregon citizens and of justice. It saves time and financial resources, a benefit to all jurisdictions, and represents an acceptance of a just sanction by the criminal. Will the governor seek a law prohibiting all convicted criminals from waiving their appeals? It's another ridiculous lack of reasoning by the governor.

With Oregon's death penalty, as the governor well knows, the non stop appeals process is the fault of leadership, the legislators, the governor and the judges that allow perversions of the law for never ending appeals.

Instead of supporting that perversion, even more, as the governor, now , does, he could have stated that the will of the people and the jurors should be carried out and that in the next session those perversions will be ended.

8) Gov. Kitzhaber states, along with many others, that the Oregon death penalty protocol is broken.

Reply: Obviously, an execution moratorium will not help that, but only enhances what is already broken. Virginia executes in 7.1 years and has executed nearly 72% of those sentenced to death row (3).

Does the governor care? Of course not. It doesn't matter what real or imagined problems may exist or are remedied, because the governor would oppose execution, under any circumstance, because he is morally opposed. As the governor couldn't or wouldn't explain his moral opposition, he uses a lot of filler, to support his decision, even though non of it was the reason for his decision - a crass political speech, which simply makes things worse, with added insult to victims and their survivors.

9) The governor is dead wrong on why other states got rid of the death penalty.

Illinois' repeal occurred, only, because anti death penalty politicians snuck in quick legislation, during the lame duck session, so that those politicians, voted out of office, could stick a finger in the eyes of the constituents who had rejected them. It was known that the newly elected legislators would have made a death penalty repeal impossible. The majority of Illinois citizens still supported the death penalty.

New Mexico only repealed the death penalty because of the larger number of anti death penalty legislators voted in, on the coattails of Obama, as connfirmed by the main sponsor of the legislation.

None of the arguments against the death penalty, all of which were rebutted, caused the repeal. The majority of New Mexican's still support the death penalty.

New Jersey's death penalty commission, appointed by the anti death penalty governor, was stacked with 13 anti death penalty folks and, maybe, two proponents. Cost had nothing to do with their decision, as they stated in their report. It was only the presence of an anti death penalty governor and an anti death penalty legislature that made the repeal succeed, at a time when death penalty support was 78%.

10) Gov. Kitzhaber: " . . . the policy of this state on capital punishment is not mine alone to decide. It is a matter for all Oregonians to decide."

Reply: Exactly. Oregonians have decided on this and the governor simply made an individual, personal decisions, as opposed to his leadership commitment. No US citizen knowingly votes for leadership who make decisions based only upon personal feelings - feelings which contradict democratic process, as well as the promise of the governor, himself.

Yet, that is what Gov. Kitzhaber has, nobly, provided? - Even though Gov. Kitzhaber stated: I was "' 'sworn to uphold the law and could not and would not intervene.', when it came to the execution of Douglas Franklin Wright in 1996." (4).

11) At his news conference, the Governor cited his physicians requirement "to do not harm".

Reply: There is no such requirement, in regard to the death penalty.  Please review:
"Physicians & The State Execution of Murderers: No Ethical/Medical Dilemma"

(1) Gov. Kitzhaber's 11/22/2011 "Statement on Capital Punishment"

(2)   a)  The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives

        b) OF COURSE THE DEATH PENALTY DETERS: A review of the debate

           99.7% of murderers tell us "Give me life, not execution"

(3) "Path to execution swifter, more certain in Va", 12/4/2011, Richmond-Times Dispatch

(4) "Death penalty: Respecting the will of voters ", 12/3/2011, The Oregonian,

Victim's Voices - These are the murder victims

Dudley Sharp
e-mail, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas

Tuesday, November 01, 2011

Troy Davis & The Innocent Frauds of the anti death penalty lobby

Troy Davis & The Innocent Frauds of the anti death penalty lobby
Dudley Sharp

The Troy Davis campaign (1), like many before it (2), is a simple, blatant fraud, easily uncovered by the most basic of fact checking (1).

The case for Davis' guilt is overwhelming, just as were his due process protections, which may have surpassed that of all but a few death row inmates.

The 2010 federal court innocence hearing found:

" . . . Mr. Davis is not innocent: the evidence produced at the hearing on the merits of Mr. Davis's claim of actual innocence and a complete review of the record in this case does not require the reversal of the jury's judgment that Troy Anthony Davis murdered City of Savannah Police Officer Mark Allen MacPhail on August 19, 1989." (3)

"Ultimately, while Mr. Davis's new evidence casts some additional, minimal doubt on his conviction, it is largely smoke and mirrors." (3)

"As a body, this evidence does not change the balance of proof that was presented at Mr. Davis's trial."(3)

"The vast majority of the evidence at trial remains intact, and the new evidence is largely not credible or lacking in probative value." (3)

None of this came as a surprise to anyone who actually followed the case, in contrast to the Save Troy Davis folks who were, willingly, duped or part of the deception.

Victims' Voices

1)   a) "Troy Davis: Worldwide anti death penalty deceptions, rightly, failed",
2) Death Row, "Exonerations", Media  & Intentional Fraud 

Deception: The DPIC "Exonerated"/"Innocence" List

The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy

3) "Innocence Hearing", ordered by the US Supreme Court, US DISTRICT COURT, in the SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA, SAVANNAH DIV.,RE TROY ANTHONY DAVIS, CASE NO. CV409-130