Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 114.0

18 

GLOSSIP v. GROSS 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

noted that “[t]he drug would never be used and has never 
been used as a sole anesthetic to give anesthesia during a
surgery,” id., at 223, and asserted that “the drug was not 
approved  by  the  FDA  as  a  sole  anesthetic  because  after 
the  use  of  fairly  large  doses  that  were  sufficient  to  reach 
the  ceiling  effect  and  produce  induction  of  unconscious­
ness,  the  patients  responded  to  the  surgery,”  id.,  at  219. 
Thus,  Dr.  Lubarsky  may  not  have  been  able  to  identify 
whether this effect would be reached at 40, 50, or 60 milli­
grams  or  some  higher  threshold,  but  he  could  specify 
that  at  no  level  would  midazolam  reliably  keep  an  in- 
mate  unconscious  once  the  second  and  third  drugs  were 
delivered.5 

These assertions were amply supported by the evidence
of the manner in which midazolam is and can be used.  All 
three experts agreed that midazolam is utilized as the sole 
sedative  only  in  minor  procedures.    Dr.  Evans,  for  exam­
ple,  acknowledged  that  while  midazolam  may  be  used  as
the  sole  drug  in  some  procedures  that  are  not  “terribly 
invasive,”  even  then  “you  would  [generally]  see  it  used  in
combination with a narcotic.”  Id., at 307.  And though, as
the  Court  observes,  Dr.  Sasich  believed  midazolam  could 
be  “used  for  medical  procedures  like  colonoscopies  and 
gastroscopies,”  ante,  at  21,  he  insisted  that  these  proce­
dures were not necessarily painful, and that it would be a 

—————— 

5 The Court claims that the District Court could have properly disre­
garded  Dr.  Lubarsky’s  testimony  because  he  asserted  that  a  protocol 
with  sodium  thiopental  would  “ ‘produce  egregious  harm  and  suffer­
ing.’ ”  Ante,  at  24,  n. 6  (quoting  App.  227).    But  Dr.  Lubarsky  did  not
testify  that,  like  midazolam,  sodium  thiopental  would  not  render  an 
inmate fully insensate even if properly administered; rather, he simply
observed  that  he  had  previously  contended  that  protocols  using  that 
drug were ineffective.  See  App. 227.  He was presumably referring to
an article he coauthored that found many condemned inmates were not 
being successfully delivered the dose of sodium thiopental necessary  to 
fully  anesthetize  them.  See  Baze,  553  U. S.,  at  67  (ALITO, J.,  concur­
ring) (discussing this study).