Glossip Vs Midazolam

Was this an issue over Dr Glucksberg bringing suit in federal district court seeking a declaration that the Washington state law violated a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was heard by the United States Supreme Court. 5. Ruling and Reasoning Chief Justice Rehnquist was the judge who wrote the majority opinion for the court. He reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that a ban on physician-assisted suicide symbolized

The Supreme Court ordered that such “deliberate indifference” to an inmate 's “serious medical needs” was a violation of that inmate 's Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. This case guaranteed three basic rights: the right to access to care, the right to care that is ordered, and the right to professional medical judgment.

1 Compare and Contrast A Summary of First Author From the court case, Glossip v. Gross, Samuel Alito, Supreme Court Justice, argues that lethal injection IS a constitutional method of execution. He argues that lethal injection is “a fast-acting barbiturate sedative that induces a deep, coma-like unconsciousness when given in the amounts used for lethal injection...inhibits all muscular-skeletal movements...inducing cardiac arrest.”

The new protocol was a four drug alternative which still contained the same drug used in the Lockett execution, Midazolam. Charles Warner along with twenty other death row inmates sued a variance of state officials, on the grounds that being put to death with the new protocol was against their eight amendment right. (No cruel or unusual punishment) They argued that Midazolam the key initial drug would cause them a horrible cruel death. They claimed that it would feel as if they had a liquid fire running through their veins.

But the Arkansas court issued a death sentence against him and force him medication before the time of his execution on January 2004. Arkansas court puts doctors in dilemma, adhere to their medical oath or criminal law. Regarding to the medical oath, doctors are not allowed to participate in the execution or use of drugs to take people life. Duty’s doctors are helping and treatment of patients not killing the patient. (Eisenberg, 2004).

On November 21, 1973, Troy Leon Gregg and his companion robbed and murdered Fred Edward Simmons and Bob Durwood Moore, two innocent people who were giving them rides. Gregg was convicted for his actions and was given the death penalty. He argued that the sentence was violating his eighth amendment which is “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (U.S. Const. amend. VIII.)

The most important issue that must be addressed in this case is the principle of the “evolving standards of decency” and the uses of a national consensus. The “evolving standards of decency” were developed by Trop v. Dulles and have been implemented in one way or another in all of the precedents dealing with “cruel and unusual” punishment. It is important to treat these principles as an important aspect of “cruel and unusual” punishment jurisprudence, therefore turning from these set of principles would be foolish and a disregard for every precedent. However, it is important to acknowledge that each case satisfies the standards by using a different method; some use the presence or lack of state legislature as a judgment of consensus while others look at foreign countries.

The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, stating “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Although the Eighth Amendment is typically used in relation to the discussion of the death penalty or the evaluation of a long prison sentence for a nonviolent crime, in 2011 the Supreme Court used the cruel and unusual punishment portion of the amendment to assess Brown v. Plata, a case which determined whether or not the Eighth Amendment protection is violated if prisoners are deprived of basic sustenance. In the case of Brown v. Plata, 46,000 prisoners were to be released from a federal correction facility as a result of unprecedented overcrowding within a

The Eighth Amendment prohibits inflicting cruel and unusual punishment on citizens. The judicial branch must ensure that the rights and privileges granted to American people by the Constitution are provided equally regardless of their race, sex, or sexual identification (Edmondson, 2017). John Doe after serving two years of a five-year sentence for manufacturing methamphetamines, escapes from prison by hiding in the back of a milk truck. When the milk truck makes its first stop, inmate Doe climbs out of the milk truck and walks away without anyone’s assistance. Inmate Doe manages to find a new set of clothes, catches a ride with a stranger, and shows up at a friend’s home.

Lee Johnson, who lived in Oregon, was a retired federal worker who began a subsequent career as a furniture maker. He then developed brain cancer. Although the disease was inevitably going to kill him, he took the necessary precautions intended to extend his life. However, his condition worsened and he became bedridden and endured blurred vision, soreness, and a lot of pain.

Hanging was the main method of execution in America until the electric chair was invented in 1890. Then came gas chambers and lethal injection in the 1920s and 1970s respectively. There were downsides to all of these methods of execution including decapitation for hanging, heads catching on fire with the electric chair, and expenses for lethal injection. The Supreme Court halted all executions for four years in 1972 because of an abolitionist group protesting possibly discriminatory convictions. After this, lethal injection was invented and adopted by many U.S. states.

Now, with the shortage of common drugs used in lethal injections, the Court is not handing the task over to doctors, and scientists, but rather politicians and lawyers who are not trained in the effects of lethal drugs. In recent executions, the offender might hold on to life for as long as twenty-five minutes, to two hours. Some might argue that this violates the Eighth Amendment, as letting someone suffer for two hours is certainly cruel and unusual punishment. In my opinion, this drug needs to be tested before someone is left barely hanging on to life for two

The death penalty is a precedent set centuries ago as a method of punishment for severe crimes. In 1923, the state of Texas declared that those sentenced to death were to suffer through the electric chair by the hands of the state, instead of being hanged by the hands of the counties (TX Executions). Later on, Texas would adopt the lethal injection method. Many see the death penalty as an inhumane violation of the basic rights defined in the Bill of Rights. On the other hand, others may argue that it is unpractical to abolish the death penalty due to the voidance of justice.

This line from the article explains that the court didn’t think it was right to execute minors, but still did it in certain cases. In addition, the court found it unconstitutional to execute other categories of people. The article states,”(The Court had also, in 2002, held it to be a violation of the Eighth Amendment to execute mentally retarded persons.) " This excerpt points out that it is illegal to execute people with mental disabilities. Lastly, the court had to decide whether this case violated the Eighth Amendment.

It’s Not working out. By:Taija Jones. The 8th amendment says “Excessive bail shall not be required, Nor excessive fines imposed, Nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” . With that being said if the 8th amendment applies for cruel punishments of death penalties then why is it still happening.