Thursday, September 17, 2009

Access Problems

On the Buckeye Surgeon's blog, https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2760353953251845523&postID=6887089455401358985 is a discussion about a prisoner that was given a reprieve from his death sentance (lethal injection)because they were unable to get venous access. If that is a problem, why not go the IO route?

My understanding is:

• IO access is a safe and effective route
for accessing the central vascular system

• IO access is similar to central line access and carries
less risk of complications. (At least in theory)

• IO is the first alternative to IV
in adult cardiac arrest patients

Just a thought....

2 comments:

williamthecoroner said...

The problem is anti-death penalty advocates will jump on ANY problem in order to call the death penalty inhumane. Secondly, IO access, like femoral access legally has to be done by "medical" personnel, and medical personnel are not allowed to take part in executions. It's a classic catch-22.

Death penalty executions must be 1. instantaneous, 2. painless, and 3. not messy 4. anonymous. That's hard. A 12 ga to the back of the neck would solve the first two problems.

DocV said...

I wasn't sure what sort of "credentialing" was needed for IO. I figured that whoever they used to start the IVs could be taught the IO technique.

I do agree that the antis would jump on it as inhumane..."They couldn't start and IV so they drilled holes in his bones! GASP!"