New technology, old dilemma - Monitoring EEG activity during executions

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 354, Issue 24, 2006, Pages 2525-2527

  Steinbrook, Robert ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PANCURONIUM BROMIDE; POTASSIUM CHLORIDE; THIOPENTAL;

ANESTHESIST; BRAIN FUNCTION; CONSCIOUSNESS; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRISONER; PUNISHMENT; REVIEW; SEDATION; UNITED STATES; VITAL SIGN;

ANESTHESIOLOGY; AWARENESS; CALIFORNIA; CAPITAL PUNISHMENT; COMMERCE; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; HUMANS; INJECTIONS, INTRAVENOUS; MONITORING, PHYSIOLOGIC; NORTH CAROLINA; PHYSICIAN'S ROLE; UNCONSCIOUSNESS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33745110340     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: 15334406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp068117     Document Type: Review

References (5)

1. Gawande A. When law and ethics collide - why physicians participate in executions. N Engl J Med 2006;354:1221-29.
2. Koniaris LG, Zimmers TA, Lubarsky DA, Sheldon JP. Inadequate anesthesia in lethal injection for execution. Lancet 2005;365:1412-4.
3. Practice advisory for intraoperative awareness and brain function monitoring: a report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Intraoperative Awareness. Anesthesiology 2006;104:847-64.
4. Zimmerman R. How necessary is brain monitor in anesthesia? Wall Street Journal. October 25, 2005:B1.
5. Weinstein H. Executions unlikely for rest of year. Los Angeles Times. April 28, 2006:B1.