• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pfizer Blocks the Use of Its Drugs in Executions

Pfizer Blocks the Use of Its Drugs in Executions


  • Total voters
    28

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
58,567
Reaction score
38,174
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/14/u...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

The pharmaceutical giant Pfizer announced on Friday that it has imposed sweeping controls on the distribution of its products to ensure that none are used in lethal injections, a step that closes off the last remaining open-market source of drugs used in executions.

More than 20 American and European drug companies have already adopted such restrictions, citing either moral or business reasons. Nonetheless, the decision from one of the world’s leading pharmaceutical manufacturers is seen as a milestone.

“With Pfizer’s announcement, all F.D.A.-approved manufacturers of any potential execution drug have now blocked their sale for this purpose,” said Maya Foa, who tracks drug companies for Reprieve, a London-based human rights advocacy group. “Executing states must now go underground if they want to get hold of medicines for use in lethal injection.”

The mounting difficulty in obtaining lethal drugs has already caused states to furtively scramble for supplies.
State(s) have attempted to import drugs from India.
Myself I an against the DP.
Do you
Agree
Disagree
Other- Pls explain
Not sure
 
I support their decision. I can understand why people and companies in the health sector don't want to assist with killing people.
 
Voted other, but in the end it is their choice.
 
Moral issues? While they also make drugs that intentionally impair citizens under the guise of mental health, and prescribed by psychologists practicing a voodoo form of health care?
I have friends that came back from Bosnia and AStan, with PTSD.

They are still on Meds, these help them to cope, even socialize and work to a point. These have also assisted them with interacting with their families and not going off the deep end of violent behaviors directed at family & friends, or turning to other drugs and alcohol as many have done.
But they will never come back to the person they were before.
Without them, they would have offed themselves years ago.
 
I have friends that came back from Bosnia and AStan, with PTSD.

They are still on Meds, these help them to cope, even socialize and work to a point. These have also assisted them with interacting with their families and not going off the deep end of violent behaviors directed at family & friends, or turning to other drugs and alcohol as many have done.
But they will never come back to the person they were before.
Without them, they would have offed themselves years ago.

I have seen people off themselves due to the same drugs. PTSD victims, and Veterans waiting on operations. I had to identify the body of a close Navy friend a couple years ago who capped himself. I went out back to identify him while his wife waited out front in a police car.

I understand the meaning in your post and appreciate the value these drugs may have to some, but they also work the other way with some people.
 
Unless we kill a LOT more prisoners than I'm aware of, prescription drugs are a much more serious threat to life, to the tune of 328,000 dead each year globally.

Most of those aren't suicides. They are wrongly prescribed, bad reactions, and/or interactions with other drugs.

New Prescription Drugs: A Major Health Risk With Few Offsetting Advantages | Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics

Consider too that most of the research these companies perform is underwritten by their governments.

So it's fine for them to unintentionally kill tens of thousands every year, but it's not OK for them to provide a lethal dose of a drug to the government (that helped pay for their research) to intentionally kill 1 convicted criminal?
 
Moral issues? While they also make drugs that intentionally impair citizens under the guise of mental health, and prescribed by psychologists practicing a voodoo form of health care?

Though, shooting the criminals might be more humane, one must ask why their moral feelings are more valuable than those of bakers that won't participate in gay marriage.
 
Change the law for execution or give it up. But is the company allowed to withhold business anymore than a baker?

Comparing an apple to a horse.
 
Unless we kill a LOT more prisoners than I'm aware of, prescription drugs are a much more serious threat to life, to the tune of 328,000 dead each year globally.

Most of those aren't suicides. They are wrongly prescribed, bad reactions, and/or interactions with other drugs.

New Prescription Drugs: A Major Health Risk With Few Offsetting Advantages | Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics

Consider too that most of the research these companies perform is underwritten by their governments.

So it's fine for them to unintentionally kill tens of thousands every year, but it's not OK for them to provide a lethal dose of a drug to the government (that helped pay for their research) to intentionally kill 1 convicted criminal?

I'm not sure you understand the difference between an intentional act and an unintentional one.
 
I'm not sure you understand the difference between an intentional act and an unintentional one.

What does that have to do with the price of cheese?
 
I'm not sure you understand the difference between an intentional act and an unintentional one.

I'm not certain what that adds to the conversation.

If it's OK for them to use the general population a guinea pigs rather than do effective testing with the full knowledge it will cost the lives of unsuspecting patients, then where do they get off acting all pious about a lawful execution?

Shut up and take the money, Big Pharma. It's what you're best at!
 
Agree, because juries are too fallible for the death penalty. The vast majority of old cases do not have DNA evidence available, and we have seen so many exonerations of persons on death row.


If juries were 100% accurate, then I'd fully support the death penalty. I cannot support that penalty in a system that fails so many.
 
If Pfizer sells a drug, they have to sell it to everyone. I read that somewhere on these boards.
 
The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia


State(s) have attempted to import drugs from India.
Myself I an against the DP.
Do you
Agree
Disagree
Other- Pls explain
Not sure
I am solidly against the DP, but I find it ironic that a company that participates in the price gouging of prescription drugs suddenly has a conscience. I wonder how many non-criminal people have died because they couldn't afford their medication?
 
The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia


State(s) have attempted to import drugs from India.
Myself I an against the DP.
Do you
Agree
Disagree
Other- Pls explain
Not sure

For Death Penalty,

I think states should just go back to hanging, execution doesn't need to be a medical procedure. Washington executed two men by hanging in 1993 and 1994, and Delaware executed one by hanging in 1996. these were extensively studied, it is quick, painless and effecient.
 
If Pfizer sells a drug, they have to sell it to everyone. I read that somewhere on these boards.

Not only that, evil big pharma shouldn't even sell. they should just give it away.
 
Agree, because juries are too fallible for the death penalty. The vast majority of old cases do not have DNA evidence available, and we have seen so many exonerations of persons on death row.


If juries were 100% accurate, then I'd fully support the death penalty. I cannot support that penalty in a system that fails so many.

your reasoning is silly, your theory taken to its logical end is that we shouldn't even have a criminal justice system if Juries are not 100% accurate.

after all, prison alters your life, so therefore no one who's innocent should spend a minute in prison.
We have not seen "so many exonerations" on death row, the number of death row exonerations isn't even a quarter of a percentage point, and that was after interested groups combed over the cases cherry picking the most likely cases. in many cases "exonerations" are entirely fake, like DPIC lists the "exoneration" of Benjamin Harrison here in Washington, only he wasn't exonerated he was re-tried found incompetent and is now committed to the booby hatch for the killing.
 
Back
Top Bottom