Edward Lee Busby Jr., 53, was executed by lethal injection on 14 May
2026 in Huntsville, Texas for the robbery and murder of a woman he
abducted from a parking lot. . . .
Busby had a previous felony conviction for manufacture and delivery of~~~~
drugs. In 2000, he was charged with first-degree aggravated kidnapping
and aggravated robbery. He was convicted on lesser, second-degree~~~~
felony charges and sent to prison. He was released in 1999.
He stayed just long enough to pronounce death from the induced coma,
then left. The patient then resumed breathing.
Now I understand the purpose of the paralytic.
https://nationalpost.com/news/ontario-man-dies-of-maid-after-being-assessed-outside-tim-hortons
David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
Edward Lee Busby Jr., 53, was executed by lethal injection on 14 May
2026 in Huntsville, Texas for the robbery and murder of a woman he
abducted from a parking lot. . . .
I'm posting in this thread because of a complaint against a Canadian
doctor administering MAID to a terminal cancer patient who began the >procedure, despite not having all three drugs. It appears to be a
similar protocol to death penalty executions.
One of the drugs induces coma which, in an adequately high dose,
typically causes respiration to cease. Another drug is a paralytic. I
never understood why a paralytic is used if the person whose life is
being ended is to die from the induced coma.
In the previous article, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
He stayed just long enough to pronounce death from the induced coma,
then left. The patient then resumed breathing.
Now I understand the purpose of the paralytic.
https://nationalpost.com/news/ontario-man-dies-of-maid-after-being-assessed-outside-tim-hortons
First off, that URL summary is the most Canadian thing ever.
Second: N2 asphyxiation. Accept no substitutes. It has all advantages
and no drawbacks.
BTW, what is "MAID"? I assume it is an acronym for something.
In <10v6t17$3esgp$1@news.xmission.com> gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny >McCormack) writes:
BTW, what is "MAID"? I assume it is an acronym for something.
Medical Assistance In Dying
Busby had a previous felony conviction for manufacture and delivery of
drugs. In 2000, he was charged with first-degree aggravated kidnapping
and aggravated robbery. He was convicted on lesser, second-degree
felony charges and sent to prison. He was released in 1999. He also
had misdemeanor convictions for burglary of a vehicle and evading
arrest.
Tue, 26 May 2026 17:58:55 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
Edward Lee Busby Jr., 53, was executed by lethal injection on 14 May
2026 in Huntsville, Texas for the robbery and murder of a woman he >>>abducted from a parking lot. . . .
I'm posting in this thread because of a complaint against a Canadian
doctor administering MAID to a terminal cancer patient who began the >>procedure, despite not having all three drugs. It appears to be a
similar protocol to death penalty executions.
One of the drugs induces coma which, in an adequately high dose,
typically causes respiration to cease. Another drug is a paralytic. I
never understood why a paralytic is used if the person whose life is
being ended is to die from the induced coma.
Texas switched away from the three-drug lethal injection protocol in 2011, >about the same time most other states did. Executions are now performed
using one drug, pentobarbital.
Second, there are (at least) 3 levels of death-penalty objectors:
1) Those who just think it is wrong regardless. That if we kill you
because you killed someone else, that makes us no better than you. The
problem with this is that if you follow it to its logical conclusion,
the whole criminal justice system falls apart (as well, incidentally,
as the justification for the military).
2) Those who would be OK with it if not for the "wrongfully convicted"
problem. I.e., if we could be 100% sure that no one who will at some
future time be found to be not guilty will ever be executed, then it
would be OK.
3) Those who worry about the actual nitty-gritty details of the
procedure (i.e., the 8th Amendment). These people would be OK with it
if we could somehow perfect the process.
My sense is that at least some people claim to be in group 3, which they
use as cover for really being in either group 1 or group 2.
In <10v6t17$3esgp$1@news.xmission.com> gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
BTW, what is "MAID"? I assume it is an acronym for something.
Medical Assistance In Dying
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
In <10v6t17$3esgp$1@news.xmission.com> gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
BTW, what is "MAID"? I assume it is an acronym for something.
Medical Assistance In Dying
Whatever deliberately assists dying is not proper medicine.
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
BTW, what is "MAID"? I assume it is an acronym for something.
Medical Assistance In Dying
Whatever deliberately assists dying is not proper medicine.
. . .
The problem described above just seems to be unavoidable, no matter what we >come up with.
Second, there are (at least) 3 levels of death-penalty objectors:
1) Those who just think it is wrong regardless. That if we kill you
because you killed someone else, that makes us no better than you. The
problem with this is that if you follow it to its logical conclusion,
the whole criminal justice system falls apart (as well, incidentally,
as the justification for the military).
2) Those who would be OK with it if not for the "wrongfully convicted"
problem. I.e., if we could be 100% sure that no one who will at some
future time be found to be not guilty will ever be executed, then it
would be OK.
3) Those who worry about the actual nitty-gritty details of the
procedure (i.e., the 8th Amendment). These people would be OK with it
if we could somehow perfect the process.
My sense is that at least some people claim to be in group 3, which they--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
use as cover for really being in either group 1 or group 2.
David Carson <davidc@wa-wd.com> wrote:
Texas switched away from the three-drug lethal injection protocol in 2011, >about the same time most other states did. Executions are now performed >using one drug, pentobarbital.
Why isn't it used for MAID, then?
Whatever deliberately assists dying is not proper medicine.
Second: N2 asphyxiation. Accept no substitutes. It has all
advantages and no drawbacks.
Unfortunately, there are still problems.
First of all, even if the N2 method is, in theory, entirely
painless,
the fact is that it (the process) still has to be administered,
which means you need a room and a mask and suitable safety
precautions,
with the result that the victim knows what is happening as it is
happening, and that terror is unavoidable (and, some would say, an
intended part of the punishment).
Second, there are (at least) 3 levels of death-penalty objectors:
1) Those who just think it is wrong regardless. That if we kill
you because you killed someone else, that makes us no better
than you. The problem with this is that if you follow it to its
logical conclusion, the whole criminal justice system falls
apart (as well, incidentally, as the justification for the
military).
2) Those who would be OK with it if not for the "wrongfully
convicted" problem. I.e., if we could be 100% sure that no one
who will at some future time be found to be not guilty will ever
be executed, then it would be OK.
3) Those who worry about the actual nitty-gritty details of the
procedure (i.e., the 8th Amendment). These people would be OK
with it if we could somehow perfect the process.
My sense is that at least some people claim to be in group 3, which
they use as cover for really being in either group 1 or group 2.
This is usually less a principled stand than mere moral squeamishness.
I think Marvin Gabrion is a human being with worth and dignity. I
believe that "made in the image of God" applies to him as much as to
any other person. But he should pay for what he did (and you can
Google that if necessary), and there is only one appropriate price,
and it should have been exacted decades ago.
2) Those who would be OK with it if not for the "wrongfully
convicted" problem. I.e., if we could be 100% sure that no one
who will at some future time be found to be not guilty will ever
be executed, then it would be OK.
This is a legitimate concern, but it's also a legitimate concern for
someone thrown in a hole for thirty years. Do we stop putting people
in prison because of the possibility of error?
The real answer to wrongful convictions is abolition of prosecutorial
and judical immunity in cases of clear misconduct.
Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
. . .
The problem described above just seems to be unavoidable, no matter what we >>come up with.
Second, there are (at least) 3 levels of death-penalty objectors:
1) Those who just think it is wrong regardless. That if we kill you
because you killed someone else, that makes us no better than you. The >> problem with this is that if you follow it to its logical conclusion,
the whole criminal justice system falls apart (as well, incidentally,
as the justification for the military).
2) Those who would be OK with it if not for the "wrongfully convicted"
problem. I.e., if we could be 100% sure that no one who will at some
future time be found to be not guilty will ever be executed, then it
would be OK.
I oppose wrongful convictions for non-death penalty cases too.
3) Those who worry about the actual nitty-gritty details of the
procedure (i.e., the 8th Amendment). These people would be OK with it
if we could somehow perfect the process.
Like Louis, I can be flippant too. Guillotine is fool proof.
Two questions to ask, now that we have established that he did what he
was accused of beyond any reasonable doubt:
1. Does he want to die or would he rather spend decades in prison?
His wishes should possibly be taken into account.
2. Which is less expensive for the state? Assuming that both options
are equally just, which one will cost less? It's very expensive
to maintain prisoners but it's also very expensive to kill people
effectively.
If someone is put into prison and it turns out there was an error,
they can be let out. And yes, much of their life has been destroyed,
but it's still a better situation than if they are unjustly
executed.
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
BTW, what is "MAID"? I assume it is an acronym for something.
Medical Assistance In Dying
Whatever deliberately assists dying is not proper medicine.
A month and a half ago, I had to choose hospice for my mother. It was
the last week of her life, and pretty much the only good decision I
made, since rehab was out of the question.
Louis, you are being flippant here by making your opposition to the
death penalty comment. It's not what patients and families actually go through.
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
In <10v6t17$3esgp$1@news.xmission.com> gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
BTW, what is "MAID"? I assume it is an acronym for something.
Medical Assistance In Dying
Whatever deliberately assists dying is not proper medicine.
I disagree completely, having had a number of friends die in horrible and painful ways. I definitely do not want to die painfully and slowly and would appreciate assistance in dying rapidly and painlessly should I be in that situation.
--scott
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
BTW, what is "MAID"? I assume it is an acronym for something.
Medical Assistance In Dying
Whatever deliberately assists dying is not proper medicine.
A month and a half ago, I had to choose hospice for my mother. It was
the last week of her life, and pretty much the only good decision I
made, since rehab was out of the question.
Hospice is one thing,deliberate seeking of death quite another.
You have discretion in how hard to push in one direction but no
right to deliberately push in the other.
It's one thing to risk your life and another to have its forfeiture
as your goal.
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
BTW, what is "MAID"? I assume it is an acronym for something.
Medical Assistance In Dying
Whatever deliberately assists dying is not proper medicine.
A month and a half ago, I had to choose hospice for my mother. It was
the last week of her life, and pretty much the only good decision I
made, since rehab was out of the question.
Hospice is one thing,deliberate seeking of death quite another.
Hospice care is deliberate and is not performed to extend life. Quite
the opposite.
You have discretion in how hard to push in one direction but no
right to deliberately push in the other.
That's not true.
My mother was taken off intravenous glucose and feeding.
She received care from the hospice nurse who was monitoring
pain and comfort and not taking life-saving or life-extending measures.
It's one thing to risk your life and another to have its forfeiture
as your goal.
You have completely the wrong idea here about what proper medical care
truly is.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
BTW, what is "MAID"? I assume it is an acronym for something.
Medical Assistance In Dying
Whatever deliberately assists dying is not proper medicine.
A month and a half ago, I had to choose hospice for my mother. It was >>>>the last week of her life, and pretty much the only good decision I >>>>made, since rehab was out of the question.
Hospice is one thing,deliberate seeking of death quite another.
Hospice care is deliberate and is not performed to extend life. Quite
the opposite.
Hospice care is about prioritizing quality of life,
but not prioritizing acceleration of death.
You have discretion in how hard to push in one direction but no
right to deliberately push in the other.
That's not true.
We disagree on that.
My mother was taken off intravenous glucose and feeding.
I would draw a line against that.
I signed a DNR for my mother but never would have
disconnected her feeding tube.
She received care from the hospice nurse who was monitoring
pain and comfort and not taking life-saving or life-extending measures.
It's one thing to risk your life and another to have its forfeiture
as your goal.
You have completely the wrong idea here about what proper medical care >>truly is.
That sentiment (toward each other's ideas) is apparently mutual.
Two questions to ask, now that we have established that he did what he
was accused of beyond any reasonable doubt:
1. Does he want to die or would he rather spend decades in prison? His >wishes should possibly be taken into account.
2. Which is less expensive for the state? Assuming that both options
are equally just, which one will cost less? It's very expensive to
maintain prisoners but it's also very expensive to kill people
effectively.
If someone is put into prison and it turns out there was an error,
they can be let out. And yes, much of their life has been destroyed,
but it's still a better situation than if they are unjustly
executed.
Of course it's "better." But it's a difference of degree, not of kind.
J.D. Baldwin <news@baldwin.users.panix.com> wrote:
If someone is put into prison and it turns out there was an error,
they can be let out. And yes, much of their life has been destroyed,
but it's still a better situation than if they are unjustly
executed.
Of course it's "better." But it's a difference of degree, not of kind.
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote: >>>>>>>gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
BTW, what is "MAID"? I assume it is an acronym for something.
Medical Assistance In Dying
Whatever deliberately assists dying is not proper medicine.
A month and a half ago, I had to choose hospice for my mother. It was >>>>>the last week of her life, and pretty much the only good decision I >>>>>made, since rehab was out of the question.
Hospice is one thing,deliberate seeking of death quite another.
Hospice care is deliberate and is not performed to extend life. Quite
the opposite.
Hospice care is about prioritizing quality of life,
but not prioritizing acceleration of death.
There's no practical difference.
You have discretion in how hard to push in one direction but no
right to deliberately push in the other.
That's not true.
We disagree on that.
It doesn't matter what you believe. It's an unrelated level of care.
There's no intensive care. There's no artificial respiration. There's no resusitation. There is consideration of whether relief of symptoms
requiring intervention causes discomfort during the procedure, in which
case it won't be performed in a hospice setting.
My mother was taken off intravenous glucose and feeding.
I would draw a line against that.
I signed a DNR for my mother but never would have
disconnected her feeding tube.
Why? It was mostly glucose, which meant frequent testing of glucose
levels which is going to interrupt rest and sleep. My mother's body
wasn't processing much of anything and wasn't benefitting,
With hospice, you really try to avoid all of the frequent blood draws
that hospital patients are typically subject to. You are mostly trying
to let the patient rest to the extent possible.
We had a long discussion about whether opioids wouod be used to manage
pain as I was hoping she'd remain conscious, but they explained she
really wasn't going to have periods of lucidity. It never really came to that, though, and the opioids would have been minimal anyway.
She received care from the hospice nurse who was monitoring
pain and comfort and not taking life-saving or life-extending measures.
It's one thing to risk your life and another to have its forfeiture
as your goal.
You have completely the wrong idea here about what proper medical care >>>truly is.
That sentiment (toward each other's ideas) is apparently mutual.
Well, there should be one consideration, doing what the patient benefits
from according to his advance directives. We do hear of relatives giving instructions to the hospital to use feeding tubes and artificial
respiration even if it's against the patient's directive.
I was well aware of my mother's wishes although we never specifically discussed hospice, and I did my best to honor them.
In article <10vcr7s$s4i$1@panix2.panix.com>,
J.D. Baldwin <news@baldwin.users.panix.com> wrote:
If someone is put into prison and it turns out there was an error,
they can be let out. And yes, much of their life has been destroyed,
but it's still a better situation than if they are unjustly
executed.
Of course it's "better." But it's a difference of degree, not of kind.
I disagree with this - and certainly with the implication that it is
obvious (as denoted by the phrase 'Of course').
I think that under most circumstances, being put in prison ruins your whole life and you're better off dead in most cases. Certainly, if they throw
you in jail for 30 or 40 years and then let you out because they finally figured out that you were not guilty, your life is so ruined that you'd
have been better off dead.
Death is by definition the worst possible
and least defensible outcome.
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
Death is by definition the worst possible
and least defensible outcome.
This is where you and I differ completely, because I would much rather be >dead than imprisoned for life. That difference is a central one between
many supporters and detractors of the death penalty and unless that >difference gets resolved I don't see the conflict changing.
And I don't see that difference getting resolved until someone comes back >from the dead to tell us what it is like, which is unlikely.
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
Death is by definition the worst possible
and least defensible outcome.
This is where you and I differ completely, because I would much rather be dead than imprisoned for life. That difference is a central one between
many supporters and detractors of the death penalty and unless that difference gets resolved I don't see the conflict changing.
And I don't see that difference getting resolved until someone comes back from the dead to tell us what it is like, which is unlikely.
--scott
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
Death is by definition the worst possible
and least defensible outcome.
This is where you and I differ completely, because I would much rather be >>dead than imprisoned for life. That difference is a central one between >>many supporters and detractors of the death penalty and unless that >>difference gets resolved I don't see the conflict changing.
The guilty person who would rather be dead than imprisoned for life
is not entitled to have his preference;the innocent person who would
rather be dead than imprisoned for life is entitled to be released.
A government can never be entitled to kill prisoners who are at
its mercy.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2And I don't see that difference getting resolved until someone comes back >>from the dead to tell us what it is like, which is unlikely.
I'd suggest that you might broaden your concern a little but I've tried
that in the past and it falls on deaf ears.
In article <10viot6$1tpg8$3@dont-email.me>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
...
I'd suggest that you might broaden your concern a little but I've tried >>that in the past and it falls on deaf ears.
I'd suggest not wasting any more time arguing with Louis.
It's obvious from all of his posts in this NG (on many different subjects) that he exists in la-la land and has long since lost any familiarity he
might have once had with reality.
Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
In article <10viot6$1tpg8$3@dont-email.me>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
...
I'd suggest that you might broaden your concern a little but I've tried >>>that in the past and it falls on deaf ears.
I'd suggest not wasting any more time arguing with Louis.
It's obvious from all of his posts in this NG (on many different subjects) >> that he exists in la-la land and has long since lost any familiarity he
might have once had with reality.
Naturally,I believe that I am better acquainted with reality
than those who disagree with me.
In article <10vlo0l$3va$1@reader1.panix.com>,
Louis Epstein <le@lekno.ws> wrote:
Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
In article <10viot6$1tpg8$3@dont-email.me>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
...
I'd suggest that you might broaden your concern a little but I've tried >>>>that in the past and it falls on deaf ears.
I'd suggest not wasting any more time arguing with Louis.
It's obvious from all of his posts in this NG (on many different subjects) >>> that he exists in la-la land and has long since lost any familiarity he
might have once had with reality.
Naturally,I believe that I am better acquainted with reality
than those who disagree with me.
Naturally.
I actually have a lot to say on the subject of the DP, but I won't go into
it here on this NG.
But I'd like clarification from you on two points:
1) IIRC, you are pro-abortion but anti-DP. This is the classic,
doctrinaire liberal position, but I think it is clear that it is flawed.
2) Given your position on the DP, what is your stance on the existence of
the military? It seems to me that if one is categorically anti-DP, that leaves no room for acceptance of the existence of the military. The existence and practice of the military does far more damage than the DP
could ever hope for.
Personally, I accept that both (the DP and the military) are necessary evils. But I have no illusions as to which is far, far worse.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 49:04:12 |
| Calls: | 1,100 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 275,768 |