On March 4, Akorn Pharmaceuticals, a man­u­fac­tur­er of two drugs (mida­zo­lam and pen­to­bar­bi­tal) that have been used in exe­cu­tions, released a state­ment announc­ing mea­sures to block the sale of its prod­ucts to pris­ons. Akorn joins at least two oth­er U.S.-based drug com­pa­nies and sev­er­al European com­pa­nies in express­ing oppo­si­tion to the use of their prod­ucts in lethal injec­tions. In 2014, Par Pharmaceuticals respond­ed to Indiana’s pro­posed use of one of their anes­thet­ics by pro­hibit­ing the sale of the drug to pris­ons. Stephen Mock, a spokesman for Par, said, ​“It’s not because we take pub­lic pol­i­cy posi­tions on issues like cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment. We’re a phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­ny, and we have a mis­sion state­ment. Par’s mis­sion is to help improve the qual­i­ty of life. Indiana’s pro­posed use of our prod­uct is con­trary to our mis­sion.” Akorn’s state­ment announc­ing their new restric­tions said, ​“The employ­ees of Akorn are com­mit­ted to fur­ther­ing human health and well­ness. In the inter­est of pro­mot­ing these val­ues, Akorn strong­ly objects to the use of its prod­ucts to con­duct or sup­port cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment through lethal injec­tion or other means.”

The con­nec­tion between Akorn’s drugs and exe­cu­tions was revealed through a fil­ing by the Alabama Department of Corrections, despite the state’s claim of the need for secrecy.

(B. Schwartzapfel, ​“Controlled Substances,” The Marshall Project, March 6, 2015). See Lethal Injection and Supreme Court (the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of the use of mida­zo­lam in exe­cu­tions will be reviewed by the Court in April).

Citation Guide