(CW: Discussion of self harm and the description of the execution)
Something seems wrong here. What nitrogen does is replace the oxygen and CO2 in your lungs. Our self preservation instinct doesn't actually respond to a lack of oxygen, but a build-up of CO2. Because of that, nothing is felt when it's all replaced by an inert gas (which, being inert, doesn't do anything to your body directly). It's actually a popularly recommended method among euthanasia advocates and as far as I can tell is the quickest, most painless, most peaceful way to (CW) commit suicide. If I eventually do it, it's probably going to be with that method, but with Helium since it's much easier to get.
With all that said, nitrogen shouldn't cause the reactions described, so I have no idea how they happened. My best guess is that it was his last (purposeful, not instinctive) attempt at saving himself. Which seems like it would be present in every method where they're conscious at the start. But that doesn't fully match with the "spasms and seizure-like movements".
Regardless, while it's probably the best method for someone who wants to die, clearly it doesn't seem great for executions. Of course executions aren't great in the first place, but one where the person is at least quickly anesthetized might be the least inhumane.
Edit: maybe he wasn't thrashing purposefully, but rather tried to hold his breath (or both), which meant the nitrogen didn't quickly replace the CO2, so he experienced the typical form of asphyxiation before the nitrogen could do anything. That would explain the deep gasping breaths at the end, he couldn't hold it any longer. That also explains why he was alive and moving for at least two minutes. Inert gas asphyxiation is supposed to be quicker than that afaik.
Definitely. They either need to find a way to prevent breath holding or just use some other method.
Or just stop executing people, but we know that one isn’t going to happen any time soon.
of course you would
I think if it was me, and they explained how it worked and told me holding my breath would make it painful, I wouldn’t try to hold my breath. But I 100% understand and empathize with the reason most people would, meaning the method needs revision or not to be used.
But unfortunately this is probably leading people to believe that inert gas asphyxiation is a violent painful event when it’s actually one of the most peaceful methods for those who want or accept it.
An important thing to note:
This is your well reasoned decision, when you are not facing the imminent prospect of death.
When you're sitting in that chair, strapped down, the eyes of everyone in the gallery staring at you with hate (or even worse, bored disinterest), the guards busily preparing your murder around you, refusing eye contact, knowing that in a few minutes they'll be carrying your cadaver to some unmarked grave, your heart racing, pounding in your ears, the murmur of medical devices, the beep beep beep of a heart monitor you know will soon be silent.
Under these stressful conditions you might not be consciously able to breathe deeply, the lizard brain may take over to extend what little time it has on this Earth.
I guess that could be true. Somewhere between deliberate action and pure instinct automatically triggered by a specific chemical circumstance. I still kind of think I personally would go with it, but I guess it’s a “what would you do” where an obvious answer isn’t always so obvious in the moment.
Like the trolley problem, the logical answer is to switch the tracks, and I think I’d do it, but maybe something in the moment stops me or makes me hesitate just a little too long. You can never really know unless it actually happens.
I guess a potential "solution" (other than not executing people in the first place) could be to put the tube directly in their mouth in some way that they can't remove it. It would probably be pretty uncomfortable, but not necessarily painful. But I guess it might appear a little brutal.
And they might fight against having it put in their mouth, but that seems like a problem for literally any execution method.
Edit: or just anesthetize them first. Is there a way to anesthetize that can't be resisted with painful results?
Yeah anasthesis is complicated and you run into the same issues trying to buy those drugs that are already making prisons seek out this execution method. You could just as easily cause toxicity and overdose or run into a allergy to the drug and then the execution will again be botched becuase the prisoner has to be in good health before the "proper" method of execution is delivered.
Of course executions aren't great in the first place, but one where the person is at least quickly anesthetized might be the least inhumane.
It's fucked up but guillotines really are the best execution method invented from a pain standpoint. I guess nobody "really knows" but we're pretty damn sure consciousness ends immediately - it's because it looks really barbaric that we wanted to replace it with something "scientific" and clean, first the electric chair then lethal injection, both of which are known to potentially cause lots of unnecessary pain to their victims.
CW description of animal testing on rats, dogs, and other animals
I think a lot of accounts are exaggerated and/or mistake muscle contractions for consciousness. But the brain is intact and still has oxygen in it for a few seconds, so there's no reason it should die instantaneously. The idea of a "head in a jar" or a head transplant does have some possibility to it, albeit very difficult and extremely likely to fail. But theoretically if you can reconnect the head to the relevant arteries or whatever in the few seconds before total oxygen deprivation and brain death, it could work.
It's a contentious topic, but there have been multiple studies indicating it could be true.
The implication that severed heads may, however briefly, retain the capacity for life has been supported by a number of unusual experiments over the past century in the field of head transplantation. In 1908, Dr. Charles Guthrie performed the world’s first canine head transplant, in which he attached one dog’s head onto the throat of another dog, reconnecting arteries so that the host provided blood flow to the newly-attached head. Of note, this procedure took approximately 20 minutes, and while the transplanted head displayed some simple reflexes, it quickly deteriorated [10]. Dr. Vladimir Demikhov, one of the founders of modern thoracic surgery, repeated a similar experiment in 1954. The heads that he transplanted displayed complex behavior and survived for far longer, up to 29 days, likely because of the significantly shorter time they were without blood flow [10]. Dr. White took the field a step further in 1970 when he performed the first “cephalic exchange transplantation” in primates. Although this transplant involved cervical spine transection of the animals and thus continuous respiratory support, the two heads displayed a normal awake EEG pattern after the surgery [10]. In 2015, Dr. Ping Ren performed a similar experiment with mice, and in one notable example, was able to keep the animals alive for six months [10]. While the science-fiction trope of a "brain in a jar” is impossible for the time being, these experiments clearly demonstrate that the long-term survival of a transplanted head is quite possible. This, in addition to the 1975 [7] and 2013 [9] studies discussed above, suggests that there is no functional difference between the brain of an executed human and the brain of an intact human, for at least several seconds post-decapitation.
If a head can be transplanted as those studies indicate, it must be alive for at least a few seconds.
The same paper gives arguments against the idea of retained consciousness (right under the section I quoted), but the studies mentioned in that section still seem to indicate about 3 seconds before unconsciousness in rats.
Like I said above, from a logical perspective it makes sense. The brain is kind of the only thing that directly matters in regards to death. Every form of death besides direct damage to the brain is ultimately the brain dying because some system required to keep it alive failed. Since the brain isn't damaged and still has oxygen in it, it should be alive for those few seconds before the oxygen runs out. I think direct and widespread destruction of the brain is probably the only way to truly guarantee near or effectively instantaneous death.
continuing from the last block, but getting kind of off topic and into very dubious unscientific speculation on my part
That's possibly why destruction of the brain makes me more uncomfortable than other forms of death, immediate cessation of the self feels wrong, like the brain should be allowed to have a couple seconds to process the fact that it's over.
I've seen a (non-scientific) theory that the idea of "heaven" could actually be the brain releasing endorphins upon death to make those final moments blissful. If true (and again it's a completely non-scientific theory with no real evidence to back it up afaik), I think everyone would deserve to experience that instead of dying immediately. It could explain some people who have near death experiences claiming to have seen heaven. But I don't know if the short time the brain is alive is really enough for that theory to be true.
(CW: Discussion of self harm and the description of the execution)
Something seems wrong here. What nitrogen does is replace the oxygen and CO2 in your lungs. Our self preservation instinct doesn't actually respond to a lack of oxygen, but a build-up of CO2. Because of that, nothing is felt when it's all replaced by an inert gas (which, being inert, doesn't do anything to your body directly). It's actually a popularly recommended method among euthanasia advocates and as far as I can tell is the quickest, most painless, most peaceful way to (CW) commit suicide. If I eventually do it, it's probably going to be with that method, but with Helium since it's much easier to get.
With all that said, nitrogen shouldn't cause the reactions described, so I have no idea how they happened. My best guess is that it was his last (purposeful, not instinctive) attempt at saving himself. Which seems like it would be present in every method where they're conscious at the start. But that doesn't fully match with the "spasms and seizure-like movements".
Regardless, while it's probably the best method for someone who wants to die, clearly it doesn't seem great for executions. Of course executions aren't great in the first place, but one where the person is at least quickly anesthetized might be the least inhumane.
Edit: maybe he wasn't thrashing purposefully, but rather tried to hold his breath (or both), which meant the nitrogen didn't quickly replace the CO2, so he experienced the typical form of asphyxiation before the nitrogen could do anything. That would explain the deep gasping breaths at the end, he couldn't hold it any longer. That also explains why he was alive and moving for at least two minutes. Inert gas asphyxiation is supposed to be quicker than that afaik.
They should expect he'd hold his breath, of course you would, so it still means the method doesn't work and is cruel.
Definitely. They either need to find a way to prevent breath holding or just use some other method.
Or just stop executing people, but we know that one isn’t going to happen any time soon.
I think if it was me, and they explained how it worked and told me holding my breath would make it painful, I wouldn’t try to hold my breath. But I 100% understand and empathize with the reason most people would, meaning the method needs revision or not to be used.
But unfortunately this is probably leading people to believe that inert gas asphyxiation is a violent painful event when it’s actually one of the most peaceful methods for those who want or accept it.
An important thing to note: This is your well reasoned decision, when you are not facing the imminent prospect of death.
When you're sitting in that chair, strapped down, the eyes of everyone in the gallery staring at you with hate (or even worse, bored disinterest), the guards busily preparing your murder around you, refusing eye contact, knowing that in a few minutes they'll be carrying your cadaver to some unmarked grave, your heart racing, pounding in your ears, the murmur of medical devices, the beep beep beep of a heart monitor you know will soon be silent.
Under these stressful conditions you might not be consciously able to breathe deeply, the lizard brain may take over to extend what little time it has on this Earth.
I guess that could be true. Somewhere between deliberate action and pure instinct automatically triggered by a specific chemical circumstance. I still kind of think I personally would go with it, but I guess it’s a “what would you do” where an obvious answer isn’t always so obvious in the moment.
Like the trolley problem, the logical answer is to switch the tracks, and I think I’d do it, but maybe something in the moment stops me or makes me hesitate just a little too long. You can never really know unless it actually happens.
spoiler
This was exactly my thought, and holding his breath would explain it really well. Which I guess is a problem with any inhalant method of execution.
spoiler
I guess a potential "solution" (other than not executing people in the first place) could be to put the tube directly in their mouth in some way that they can't remove it. It would probably be pretty uncomfortable, but not necessarily painful. But I guess it might appear a little brutal.
And they might fight against having it put in their mouth, but that seems like a problem for literally any execution method.
Edit: or just anesthetize them first. Is there a way to anesthetize that can't be resisted with painful results?
spoiler
Could you not just like, overdose them on heroin? Maybe followed by nitrogen for confirmation? Or of course you could just not execute people.
I would guess the problem with anesthesia is it's actually pretty complicated and things can go wrong with that step
Yeah, plus doctors and nurses won't do it which means you're relying on untrained pigs.
Yeah anasthesis is complicated and you run into the same issues trying to buy those drugs that are already making prisons seek out this execution method. You could just as easily cause toxicity and overdose or run into a allergy to the drug and then the execution will again be botched becuase the prisoner has to be in good health before the "proper" method of execution is delivered.
It's just so fucked.
CW execution talk
It's fucked up but guillotines really are the best execution method invented from a pain standpoint. I guess nobody "really knows" but we're pretty damn sure consciousness ends immediately - it's because it looks really barbaric that we wanted to replace it with something "scientific" and clean, first the electric chair then lethal injection, both of which are known to potentially cause lots of unnecessary pain to their victims.
spoiler
I thought the opposite was true, that heads have been observed to be alive for a couple seconds after.
But yeah, anything involving mutilation or destruction of the head is just so uncomfortable to me.
I could be wrong but I remember reading that was a myth.
CW description of animal testing on rats, dogs, and other animals
I think a lot of accounts are exaggerated and/or mistake muscle contractions for consciousness. But the brain is intact and still has oxygen in it for a few seconds, so there's no reason it should die instantaneously. The idea of a "head in a jar" or a head transplant does have some possibility to it, albeit very difficult and extremely likely to fail. But theoretically if you can reconnect the head to the relevant arteries or whatever in the few seconds before total oxygen deprivation and brain death, it could work.
It's a contentious topic, but there have been multiple studies indicating it could be true.
— https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9930870
(Emphasis mine)
If a head can be transplanted as those studies indicate, it must be alive for at least a few seconds.
The same paper gives arguments against the idea of retained consciousness (right under the section I quoted), but the studies mentioned in that section still seem to indicate about 3 seconds before unconsciousness in rats.
Like I said above, from a logical perspective it makes sense. The brain is kind of the only thing that directly matters in regards to death. Every form of death besides direct damage to the brain is ultimately the brain dying because some system required to keep it alive failed. Since the brain isn't damaged and still has oxygen in it, it should be alive for those few seconds before the oxygen runs out. I think direct and widespread destruction of the brain is probably the only way to truly guarantee near or effectively instantaneous death.
continuing from the last block, but getting kind of off topic and into very dubious unscientific speculation on my part
That's possibly why destruction of the brain makes me more uncomfortable than other forms of death, immediate cessation of the self feels wrong, like the brain should be allowed to have a couple seconds to process the fact that it's over.
I've seen a (non-scientific) theory that the idea of "heaven" could actually be the brain releasing endorphins upon death to make those final moments blissful. If true (and again it's a completely non-scientific theory with no real evidence to back it up afaik), I think everyone would deserve to experience that instead of dying immediately. It could explain some people who have near death experiences claiming to have seen heaven. But I don't know if the short time the brain is alive is really enough for that theory to be true.