So you want the states to conspire to pay people to break federal patent laws? That’s not a good look, for state officials potentially to be charged under federal law. There was one similar episode already, where one of the states got into trouble with federal law by illegally importing drugs for executions.
With respect to heroin, you run into FDA laws - drugs have to be approved for use for humans, and using drugs that are not so approved can be a federal offence, again. Is heroin so approved? If not, there’s another potential federal crime. Taking heroin out of the evidence lockers to be used for a non-approved process may be trafficking in heroin, another federal law broken.
Plus, if you’re just using heroin that has been seized from the street, there is no guarantee that it does not contain additives, or of dosage strength. That could easily found a cruel and unusual objection by the prisoner, since the state cannot guarantee that the quality of the heroin.
Any use of Heroin, barbiturates, etc. for executions would be off-label use. Off-label use is not automatically illegal but I do not imagine the FDA is in the business of approving drugs for use in executing humans, which may make manufacturing them for that express purpose legally problematic, even without patent issues. Now, to get a license to manufacture controlled substances in, say, New York, you need to document how the drugs are going to be kept in a vault and so on. You can’t then sell them in a back alley, because they are controlled substances, and you can’t get a doctor to prescribe them to kill someone, for obvious reasons. Note that some of these types of drugs are used in veterinary euthanasia and that practice is legal.
Schedule I drugs such as Heroin are considered to have no legitimate medical use under federal law, so you probably could not even do an “off label” use as there is no label use to begin with?
Plus, is using a drug to intentionally kill someone an acceptable “off-label” use? It’s of no benefit to the individual, who is not a patient needing treatment.
How does “off-label” work in the US? I would have thought it can only be used for therapeutic purposes, for the benefit of a patient, who consents to the use of the drug.
Is using a drug to intentionally kill someone, for no therapeutic purpose, without their consent, within the terms of “off-label”?
I think a doctor who wrote prescriptions to execute people would have a lot of trouble finding work as a doctor. I suspect they’d also lose their license.
Which is part of the reason why lethal injection as an execution method has become more difficult to administer in the U.S. Not only are the pharmaceutical companies hesitant to supply the drugs involved, but it generally requires a doctor or other medical professional to oversee the process and administer the drugs, and the American Medical Association’s Code of Ethics forbids physicians from participating in executions.
Not just Europe. There was a surreptitious attempt by the California authorities to purchase a execution drugs from a Pakistani manufacturer a few years ago, and were refused when they found out.
Several execution drugs have legitimate medical uses, manufactures are understandably reluctant to risk the public getting a warped idea about a drug and being known as “the choice of the executioners”.
As explained, no legitimate doctor will kill a healthy patient (on purpose ), and no legitimate pharmaceutical company will sell drugs for such purposes. We need not even examine whether “Fentanyl O.D.” is really a method you want to use to kill people.
Also, that’s a very unpredictable way to kill people. People have wildly different tolerance for opiates, and some prisoners have an extremely high tolerance.
As I recall, the government can appropriate an invention patent for national security purposes. Wired magazine mentioned this in an article about how the NSA or someone had for some reason (?) appropriated an incention for a watertight underwater firbre optic cable splice unit.
I can’t imagine a better reason to claim national security than removing people who are a menace to society. (Apparently drones do so regularly)
So the drug patent argument holds no water, should the govrnment choose to make its own.
Let’s be clear, they don’t need to play legal games to discover an effective way to “remove people who are a menace to society”. They need to play legal games to use medication for the purpose.
If this is important enough, you can go right back to highly effective methods like hanging, shooting, electrocuting or guillotining. They’re just not pretty and clinical, they don’t let the subject die quietly and cleanly like they just went to sleep, they’re messy ways to kill people. However, if it’s super important to kill someone, why worry about neatness?
), and no legitimate pharmaceutical company will sell drugs for such purposes. We need not even examine whether “Fentanyl O.D.” is really a method you want to use to kill people.