My guess would be because the "we're trying to kill her" thing is an extreme aberration of the regular order of things so as soon as the narrow window where that was somehow okay is closed the default practice of trying to help people kicks back in. Especially once she's in the hands of actual medical practitioners who take their oathes seriously.

I doubt the medical staff would participate and the idea of an execution is that it's supposed to be quick and painless.

The same question has crosses my mind too though. Seems super bizarre to decide to do something like this and then pivot to life saving critical care as soon as you fuck up. I read that the people they have to obtain IV access as not well trained so the IVs tend to infiltrate (leak into the subcutaneous tissue) leading to only a partial dose being delivered to the bloodstream.

So, this is going to sound like something an idiot would say, but, I'm honestly curious.

Why don't they just execute people with a slow overdose of heroin or fentanyl or something? I've heard that the actual cocktail isn't all that comfortable for the victim anyway, so let them drift off to sleep and not wake up. I know there must be a reason, and I'd be really interested to hear it.

the official drugs come from EU pharm companies, and they stopped providing it to the states, because the bad pr associated with executing people. they have since are trying to make thier bootleg execution drugs.

Nah, just take twice as much.

What is notable about it? Most people don’t really seem to get any closure from the death penalty and regardless of what this mother wants I don’t think she is going to be able to let her daughter rest or that her daughter will rest with any amount of violence done to the perpetrators. People want these people to die but when they do it seems like it dosent ever really change anything.

Well technically yes, but defending them from what. IMO I don't get the point of gratuitous punishment.

IE I see 2 possibilities.

1. Someone can be rehabilitated. IE we think it's reasonable that after the punishment we consider them able to be low enough risk that more or less they can contribute to society and function as a normal person again.

2. Someone can't be rehabilitated. In which case punishment is completely meaningless, and we need to keep them away from any potential victims for the rest of their lives. Of which I do understand but not agree with the concept of shortening it.

But in the case of 2, I flat out don't get the concept of intentionally adding suffering in that point for any purpose other than keeping them from getting near innocents. If we've given up on changing them, then we've negated any potential purpose to the suffering, and thus it's just gratuitous and... makes those involved in it's execution the monsters.

And anyone who plants a tree is providing aid and comfort to them.

I read they used 7 needles!