What's the reason for the 3-drug protocol anyway?
Don't veterinarians just use a massive overdose of anaesthetic when they euthanize animals? That sounds just like the 1-drug protocol, and it seems to work fine.
1. Either anti-anxiety or mild sedative for tranquilizing effect.
2. Heavier tranquilizer or anesthetic to induce general "you aint gonna feel a thing" state
3. Fatal dose of heart stopper/breath stopper combination
The original 3-drug protocol was worked out by a combination of corrections system officials, representatives of the medical profession, and the Attorney General's Office. Cost efficiency and effectiveness vs. humane because we aren't going to let anybody but a licensed MD inject drugs even into a condemned man because we might lose our monopoly on ordering the injecting of drugs vs. is this gonna violate the 8th or 14th Amendment?
Virginia had a legal rodeo a few years ago about putting a condemned man under general anesthesia to cut down to a vein (no surface sites available) before they actually injected him being a violation of the 8th Amendment. Fortunately, the 4th Circuit ruled that it was neither cruel nor unusual (very good exposition on why not either) nor both cruel and unusual in the same breath, to do a cut-down procedure under general anesthesia.
What does not amaze me is that very few MDs employed by correctional systems are members of the AMA. AMA opposes capital punishment and does not allow its members to participate in any way - no ordering of drugs, no writing out the orders to inject, no nothing related to the event. Seems the docs decided (correctly, in my view) that among other things the paycheck was more important than being an AMA member, even if AMA membership is a prerequisite to all those specialty societies (Fellow of American Society of Facio-Maxial Rectal-Pedal Extractors* and the like).
The guy who pries your foot out of your mouth while your head is up your buttstay safe.