We can clearly see that it's not to make it painless for the inmate.
I think it was actually. As I described in my main comment in this thread, inert gas asphyxiation is painless. So I think the intent was indeed to make it painless.
They just didn't take into account that the person might hold their breath, causing them to experience normal asphyxiation from the remaining CO2 in their body. Or they did take it into account by just telling him not to hold his breath or something, as if that would stop him from doing so.
Gas asphyxiation is often painless/quick because you dont know its happening. Kind of impossible to do though once you tell someone your gonna smother them in a room and they wont try to save you. Who wouldn't get a panic attack and hyperventilate over that?
Inert gas asphyxiation is painless because it doesn't cause a build-up of CO2, instead replacing both the oxygen and CO2. Your body only responds to a build-up of CO2, not a lack of oxygen. And the gas itself, being inert, doesn't directly do anything to your body. Hyperventilating would probably just help speed it along.
Holding your breath however completely defeats the point because you burn through your oxygen, it becomes CO2, and it doesn't leave the body because you're not letting it.
Not that the blame is on him for holding his breath, I completely understand. It just shows that while this method would be great for euthanasia, it's not so good for execution. I hope it isn't demonized and banned for use in euthanasia because of this.
I think it was actually. As I described in my main comment in this thread, inert gas asphyxiation is painless. So I think the intent was indeed to make it painless.
They just didn't take into account that the person might hold their breath, causing them to experience normal asphyxiation from the remaining CO2 in their body. Or they did take it into account by just telling him not to hold his breath or something, as if that would stop him from doing so.
Gas asphyxiation is often painless/quick because you dont know its happening. Kind of impossible to do though once you tell someone your gonna smother them in a room and they wont try to save you. Who wouldn't get a panic attack and hyperventilate over that?
Inert gas asphyxiation is painless because it doesn't cause a build-up of CO2, instead replacing both the oxygen and CO2. Your body only responds to a build-up of CO2, not a lack of oxygen. And the gas itself, being inert, doesn't directly do anything to your body. Hyperventilating would probably just help speed it along.
Holding your breath however completely defeats the point because you burn through your oxygen, it becomes CO2, and it doesn't leave the body because you're not letting it.
Not that the blame is on him for holding his breath, I completely understand. It just shows that while this method would be great for euthanasia, it's not so good for execution. I hope it isn't demonized and banned for use in euthanasia because of this.
Interesting. Thanks