Move follows Alabama’s recent killing of death row inmate Kenneth Smith using previously untested method

Three of the largest manufacturers of medical-grade nitrogen gas in the US have barred their products from being used in executions, following Alabama’s recent killing of the death row inmate Kenneth Smith using a previously untested method known as nitrogen hypoxia.

The three companies have confirmed to the Guardian that they have put in place mechanisms that will prevent their nitrogen cylinders falling into the hands of departments of correction in death penalty states. The move by the trio marks the first signs of corporate action to stop medical nitrogen, which is designed to preserve life, being used for the exact opposite – killing people.

The green shoots of a corporate blockade for nitrogen echoes the almost total boycott that is now in place for medical drugs used in lethal injections. That boycott has made it so difficult for death penalty states to procure drugs such as pentobarbital and midazolam that a growing number are turning to nitrogen as an alternative killing technique.

Now, nitrogen producers are engaging in their own efforts to prevent the abuse of their products. The march has been led by Airgas, which is owned by the French multinational Air Liquide.

  • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Uhhhhhh what? The electric chair was found unsuitable and unconditional. But sure you’re a rational party in this argument.

      • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        It was effectively outlawed in 2008 by the Nebraska Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court didn’t take up the case and effectively banned it by not accepting applies.

        • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          This would only ban it in Nebraska. Scotus not taking appeal is not the same as scotus taking the appeal and denying it and even that is not the same as scotus ruling it unconstitutional.

          Especially if the lower court ruled based on Nebraska law or constitution. Scotus rejecting appeal to such is just standard: We don’t care what states do. Which is the default in Federalism. States can ban things the Feds allow*.

          * many exceptions may apply