Nevada refusing Pfizer demand for return of execution drugs

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press


Ken Ritter, Associated Press

 Updated 7:27 pm, Friday, November 17, 2017

A Nevada prisons official said Friday the state is refusing pharmaceutical company Pfizer's demand to return a drug it manufactured and not use it in a planned lethal injection execution.

Nevada received a letter Oct. 4 similar to one received by officials in Nebraska and reported by the Omaha World-Herald, Nevada Department of Corrections spokeswoman Brooke Keast said.

The Nevada letter, obtained Friday by The Associated Press, seeks the return from the prisons pharmacy of the sedative diazepam or the opioid painkiller fentanyl made by Pfizer if they are intended for what the company calls "misuse" in an execution.

"Pfizer strongly objects to the use of its products as lethal injections for capital punishment," company executive Robert Jones said in the Oct. 4 correspondence, which promised to reimburse the state for the returned drug.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Pfizer-tells-Nebraska-not-to-use-its-drugs-in-12366227.php

[SergeStorms]

1. Diazepam.

Generic Valium. Used in combination with pain killers will produce a deeply euphoric high. Used in combination with Fentanyl might kill someone, depending on the dosage. Fentanyl is a kick-ass pain killer, 100-10,000 times more powerful than Morphine, and it's use must be monitored closely.
It was prescribed to me in patch form, 50mg. patches for 12 hrs. of pain relief. I'd had a failed spinal fusion, and narcotic drugs have been my constant companion ever since. I almost died from that crap. My respiration and heart beat fell dramatically, and I called 911. I immediately removed the patch and when the ambulance arrived I was taken to hospital and put under observation eight hours. I was fine after that, but I've never used Fentanyl again, even at a lower dose. It's considered safe for most people, but I wasn't one of those people.

[pat_k]

2. Raises lots of questions for me.

Makes me want to find out more about the regulations that enable a state to procure drugs for lethal injection. Who supplied it? What protections does the state give whoever they are getting to supply it?

Wonder if a court would even find that Pfizer had standing if they decided to file a motion to stay the execution on the grounds that the Nevada is "misusing" their drug?

A legal and ethical quagmire. Hope Pfizer takes more definitive action. If they do, good on them.

[jberryhill]

3. On question 3 there...

Should the manufacturer of anything you own be able to sue to take it away from you, if you are using it for something of which they disapprove?

[still_one]

4. Isn't the question that the drug is being used for something it wasn't approved?

[jberryhill]

6. Pfizer cant sue for that

And J&J isn’t coming for my Q-Tips, even if I stick them in my ears.

[still_one]

9. I didn't say they were suing. They are asking that their prescription product not be used for

something it wasn't intended.

I think the actual jurisdiction for its use would be goverened by the FDA

[localroger]

5. It's CYA

You sell something, it's not supposed to be dangerous and kill people. Someone is actually using it to kill people, it reflects badly on use of that product by people who don't want to be killed, especially if someone uses it and accidentally dies. So no, they don't have any real control over how their product is used once it's paid for (though they can, and have, refused to sell it in the first place when they know what it's going to be used for). But anybody can also sue anybody for anything, and this is just a forceful way of registering their objection and giving themselves some legal cover if it ever comes up in a liability hearing.

[jberryhill]

8. Yes but thats all it is

I was responding to the question of whether Pfizer could take legal action of some kind to stop it.

[localroger]

10. Yes, I don't think we are disagreeing

Pfizer can take legal action. Nobody can stop them from doing that; it's their right as a corporate entity in the US. That doesn't mean they have any chance of succeeding in that action. This suit has no chance of success and I'm sure Pfizer's legal team have let them know this. But it has a theatrical purpose, which is to let the world know they are unthrilled with this use of their product. There are very good marketing reasons for them to want to do this which have bupkis to do with actual ethics or morality.

In other contexts the "anybody can sue anybody for anything" thing has been abused by companies to harass protesters, which has resulted in the SLAPP laws to discourage that. But I don't think SLAPP applies to this, since Pfizer is suing a US state. I'm a technology guy, not a law guy, but I may ask the law guy at work about this on Monday because it's an interesting question whether this can be sanctioned.