That requires a belief in free will that is not empirically supported.
If it were to be sold to one state it could be sold to another. Hence no export to a state able to sell it to a death making state.
The drugs withdrawn were used for little else than killing.
I see no moral problem with refusing to supply instruments of death to a death making state in the same way we deny tools of torture or repression to other despotic states.
How about this “compromise” stinks, because all you have done is twist his intent so that it matches yours? Get real.
<dripping with sarcasm>
So a drug that the World Health Organization placed on its Essential Drugs List is used for "little else than killing? " Sodium thiopental has been on that list (pdf link). Midazolam is currently on that list.
No need for muscle relaxant. Patient has tetanus? So what! Just shove that intubation tube in if you meet resistance. After all that pancuronium bromide is used for “little else than killing.”
Potassium chloride is used for so many things (some medical, some not) that the mere suggestion that it is used for “little else than killing” is laughable.
But screw the people who need those drugs. They don’t really need oral rehydration solutions. They don’t really need anesthetics. They don’t really need life saving medical treatments. And if we we sell them such drugs they might be used in an execution. Better to deprive the benefits of those drugs to a population of millions.
</dripping with sarcasm>
Making stuff up does not benefit your argument.
If the USA wishes to make the pancuronium bromide, it is free to do so, it is off patent.Europe is under no obligation to do so. Midazolam and potassium chloride are not banned.
It is a moral argument- we will not take any part in the immoral, disgusting, inhuman and demeaning process of judicial killing. The USA is powerless to force us to. Suck it up.
By your same argument Europe should withhold export of every bit of medical supplies that might possible be used in an execution protocol?
And who cares if thousands die as a result?
Would that be the ever popular “Argument of Ridiculous Extremes”?
Now that is just a silly argument. Stopping the prime ingredient has had its desired effect.
Just trying to see how deep the water is. Pjen stepped off the pier long ago by making some ridiculous assertions.
Which assertions?
Wait, what? You’re the one who talked up the wonder of felons making decisions as autonomous individuals. You’re the one basing your whole claim on it. Anyone else can raise that latest point, but how can you manage it?
Maybe you need a little philosophy. I do not believe in the common myth of real free will; nor do most philosophers or Neuro-scientists; philosophical Libertarians probably amount to less than ten per cent of this group. On the other hand, the social construct of humans having a sense of freedom and that this should be respected as part of our construction of humanity is quite rational, even though there is no empirical support for Free Will. Both the common view of human free will and the sense of autonomy are ontologically doubtful, but an essential part of human belief.
My question is this: is it your position that (a) as you stated earlier, when someone appears to be an autonomous individual who decides to forfeit his life, you have no problem with allowing him to do so? And (b) if so, why not likewise treat that same person as an autonomous individual decision-maker upon slowly and clearly explaining to him that, if he decides to do X or Y or Z, he’s choosing to forfeit his life?
I don’t much care what you think about free will; just the part where it’s consistent.
You made several offensive statements. Two that stand out include execution being driven by vengeful relatives insinuating they are a part of a vengeful mob.
And another particularly offensive post about those same relatives and the mob having a need for theater and seeing pain.
Somehow you seem to proffer that that family victims of murder victims are so influential that they can drive the death penalty debate but the reality is they can’t even give victim impact statements in some states despite SCOTUS ruling them constitutional. * Indiana even prohibits such victim impact statements in cases where life without parole is being sought and the death penalty isn’t even an issue.
*Payne, inmate #121163, committed these heinous murders in June 1987. His case made it all the way to the SCOTUS in 1991. (That’s 23 years ago.) He is still alive as of this date. Do you imagine this is the result of the influence of the victim’s family?
As a part of constructing a model of human autonomy, we credit peel with an illusory free will in order to ensure that we do not treat people as automatons.
When people act in the way determined by their Neuro-chemical history, genetics and life experiences, we deal with negative acts in a manner that a/ pays due attention to our creation of the model of human autonomy, but b/ recognises that in practical terms they could not have acted otherwise. This is the view of the illusion of free will held by almost all philosophers and neuro-scientists.
You may find them offensive but that is your problem, not mine.
I do see the whole judicial killing problem as a failure of people individually and collectively to deal with intense negative feelings in an advanced and adult manner. Most rule of law jurisdictions manage very well without killing felons; those that still feel that need must explain why they still engage in inhuman practices when they have available to them models of other systems that enforce justice without killing people.
Pjen: You seem to have some rather, shall we say, nuanced ideas about how things work in the US. Where do you get those ideas from? I’m ask because of a few of your posts in this and other threads.
I attended high school and university in the USA. I visit annually for vacations.
I simply cannot reply in thread. Moving to Pit.