• 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
I almost never vote in these polls but I did here. Of course they should exercise their right to not participate. If a doctor employed by the state refused to participate in an execution I'd support him, too.
Why not just say fvckit and join the rest of the countries with the death penalty and behead the condemned? All this trying to make it humane is a sham anyway. Guillotine, that's my advise. You want humane? I bet a guillotine causes less suffering than lethal injection or gas or old sparky.
 
jamesrage said:
Maybe pro-life groups should pressure these pharmaceutical companies to stop selling drugs to abortion clinics.
Click to expand...

Maybe they should, but they probably won't. They'll just continue to complain about what liberal, pro-choice groups do.
 
Considering the moral abjection of pharmaceutical companies, forgive me for passing on the festivity.
 
JANFU said:
joG said:
Change the law for execution or give it up. But is the company allowed to withhold business anymore than a baker?
Click to expand...
Comparing an apple to a horse.
Click to expand...
No, it was an accurate comparison.

The Gov. stepped in to tell a baker that they had to provide their product regardless if they disagreed with what it was being used for.

It seems the same should happen here with Pfizer.
The Gov. should step in and tell them they can not discriminate because they do not like what their product is being used for.

If it isn't right for the Gov. to do that with Pfizer, it isn't right when they did it with a baker either.
 
Excon said:
No, it was an accurate comparison.

The Gov. stepped in to tell a baker that they had to provide their product regardless if they disagreed with what it was being used for.

It seems the same should happen here with Pfizer.
The Gov. should step in and tell them they can not discriminate because they do not like what their product is being used for.

If it isn't right for the Gov. to do that with Pfizer, it isn't right when they did it with a baker either.
Click to expand...

FDA regulated drugs- cakes last time I looked were not. Also proprietary rights on the drugs. Cakes don't have those as well.
 
RetiredUSN said:
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.
Click to expand...

Or they didn't work well enough...
 
Grand Mal said:
I almost never vote in these polls but I did here. Of course they should exercise their right to not participate. If a doctor employed by the state refused to participate in an execution I'd support him, too.
Why not just say fvckit and join the rest of the countries with the death penalty and behead the condemned? All this trying to make it humane is a sham anyway. Guillotine, that's my advise. You want humane? I bet a guillotine causes less suffering than lethal injection or gas or old sparky.
Click to expand...
Long drop hanging.

Japan and South Korea still use hanging, rather frequently.

Guillotine is messy, and the point of the death penalty is not to be a spectacle, or a deterrent, it is to punish that offender
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Long drop hanging.

Japan and South Korea still use hanging, rather frequently.

Guillotine is messy, and the point of the death penalty is not to be a spectacle, or a deterrent, it is to punish that offender
Click to expand...
Guillotine was only a spectacle in France because they chose to do it in the town square.
 
JANFU said:
FDA regulated drugs- cakes last time I looked were not. Also proprietary rights on the drugs. Cakes don't have those as well.
Click to expand...

Not really relevant to the argument.

Again.

The Gov. stepped in to tell a baker that they had to provide their product regardless if they disagreed with what it was being used for.

It seems the same should happen here with Pfizer.
The Gov. should step in and tell them they can not discriminate because they do not like what their product is being used for.

If it isn't right for the Gov. to do that with Pfizer, it isn't right when they did it with a baker either.​

Commerce is what is being regulated here regardless if there is any proprietary rights on the product, or the FDA has any say prior to it reaching a legal customer.
Like the cake there should be no discrimination, or you let the seller determine who they want to associate with. That is called freedom of association which is recognized by the SCOTUS as an essential part of the Freedom of Speech.
 
Excon said:
Not really relevant to the argument.

Again.

The Gov. stepped in to tell a baker that they had to provide their product regardless if they disagreed with what it was being used for.

It seems the same should happen here with Pfizer.
The Gov. should step in and tell them they can not discriminate because they do not like what their product is being used for.

If it isn't right for the Gov. to do that with Pfizer, it isn't right when they did it with a baker either.​

Commerce is what is being regulated here regardless if there is any proprietary rights on the product, or the FDA has any say prior to it reaching a legal customer.
Like the cake there should be no discrimination, or you let the seller determine who they want to associate with. That is called freedom of association which is recognized by the SCOTUS as an essential part of the Freedom of Speech.
Click to expand...

Nope- If it had any legal standing the States wooed have used it.
 
JANFU said:
Nope- If it had any legal standing the States wooed have used it.
Click to expand...
Both times you have failed to refute what was stated.
Try again.
 
BrewerBob said:
I support their decision. I can understand why people and companies in the health sector don't want to assist with killing people.
Click to expand...

agreed, I am ambivalent about the death penalty and ascribe to what a former prosecutor-now a federal judge said-some people deserve to be fried but I don't support the government having the power to fry people. but I don't think rope makers can stop the government buying rope to use for hanging mopes and like it or not, that kills someone probably quicker than lethal injections
 
Excon said:
Both times you have failed to refute what was stated.
Try again.
Click to expand...
I am not a legal scholar. But if your argument had any validity the States would have used it.
Or are you more conversant with the law than all States legal teams that are affected?
So yes I have answered your question.
 
TurtleDude said:
agreed, I am ambivalent about the death penalty and ascribe to what a former prosecutor-now a federal judge said-some people deserve to be fried but I don't support the government having the power to fry people. but I don't think rope makers can stop the government buying rope to use for hanging mopes and like it or not, that kills someone probably quicker than lethal injections
Click to expand...

True point on the rope. I initially wondered how they could stop the government from purchasing the product then I remembered this is a controlled substance and the buyer has to present credentials to the producer in order to obtain it. And that must be when they deny sale.

If I were going to be executed I wouldn't want lethal injection. I might be more comfortable with receiving it if it were being done by doctors, but of course it isn't. Frankly, if I had a choice, I would just want a bullet to the back of the head. No pain and instant lights out.
 
JANFU said:
I am not a legal scholar. But if your argument had any validity the States would have used it.
Or are you more conversant with the law than all States legal teams that are affected?
So yes I have answered your question.
Click to expand...
Three times now.
Speculative supposition is only deflection. Try again.
 
Excon said:
Three times now.
Speculative supposition is only deflection. Try again.
Click to expand...

No deflection at all.
Told ya what I now, what I think.
If you believe you have a case contact Texas Corrections.
 
JANFU said:
No deflection at all.
Told ya what I now, what I think.
If you believe you have a case contact Texas Corrections.
Click to expand...
Four time now.
What you think isn't a refutation but a deflection.
 
What if stubborn states do go underground to get the drug to continue their practices? Then we would be dealing with executions that are using potentially inaccurate or doctored substances. Creepy.

Hopefully it doesn't come to that.
 
Pfizer is showing more integrity than Degesh who sold Zyklon B to the SS without the indicator, the bad smell that warned of it's presence.

edit- not every reference to Nazis is a Godwin.
 
Last edited:
They have the right to choose not to sell their drugs for the purpose of lethal injections if that's what they want.

There are plenty of other humane ways to execute someone, so I don't really see what the issue is.
 
That is a tough question. Putting someone to death should never be taken lightly, and I am very divided on the issue. I don't think pharmas should withhold a drug, any drug.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom