Some states are turn­ing to the wide­ly avail­able-drug pen­to­bar­bi­tal for use in their lethal injec­tions, instead of sodi­um thiopen­tal, which is in short sup­ply in the U.S. But some med­ical pro­fes­sion­als have not­ed that, although the new drug shares many sim­i­lar­i­ties with sodi­um thiopen­tal, pen­to­bar­bi­tal has rarely been used in humans. Dr. David Varlotta, who sits on the board of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, said that he has not used pen­to­bar­bi­tal since 1986. Dr. Varlotta said, ​“If depart­ments of cor­rec­tions are mov­ing toward pen­to­bar­bi­tal, they’re mov­ing away from the exper­tise of anes­the­si­ol­o­gists.” Recently, a spokesper­son for Lundbeck Inc., the sole U.S. man­u­fac­tur­er of pen­to­bar­bi­tal, said that using the drug for exe­cu­tions is not what the com­pa­ny intend­ed and ​“goes against every­thing we’re in busi­ness to do.” Lundbeck is based in Denmark, a coun­try that strong­ly oppos­es the death penal­ty. Last year, Oklahoma adopt­ed pen­to­bar­bi­tal as a part of its three-drug pro­to­col, replac­ing sodi­um thiopen­tal. Earlier this year, Ohio announced that it would use pen­to­bar­bi­tal alone in its one-drug pro­to­col. Among death penal­ty states, only South Carolina has said it is not look­ing at alter­na­tives to sodium thiopental.

Dr. Mark Dershwitz, a University of Massachusetts anes­the­si­ol­o­gist, said he sup­ports states using pen­to­bar­bi­tal for exe­cu­tions. The biggest dif­fer­ence between the 2 drugs, he said, is that pen­to­bar­bi­tal knocks out patients longer. 

(G. Bluestein, ​“Replacement Execution Drug Ample, But Has Issues,” Associated Press, March 2, 2011). See Lethal Injection and Executions.

Citation Guide