IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/19857591096-1099_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Killing with kindness: Why the FDA need not certify drugs used for execution safe and effective

Author

Listed:
  • Annas, G.J.

Abstract

In 1977, Texas and Oklahoma became the first states to legalize administration of the death penalty by lethal injection; by late 1985, 14 other states had followed suit. Opponents of the death penalty petitioned the Food and Drug Administration in 1980 to declare drugs specified for use in executions as "not approved," and to prevent their use for that purpose. When the FDA denied their request, the petitioners took legal action against the agency, eventually arguing their case before the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled against them in Heckler v. Chaney (1985). Annas discusses the Court's action, which dealt only with the judicial reviewability under federal statute of the FDA's decision not to exercise its authority over the use of drugs in interstate commerce. He notes that, by dealing only with procedural issues, the Court avoided ruling on the death penalty itself.

Suggested Citation

  • Annas, G.J., 1985. "Killing with kindness: Why the FDA need not certify drugs used for execution safe and effective," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 75(9), pages 1096-1099.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1985:75:9:1096-1099_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1985:75:9:1096-1099_6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.