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.
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