On execution...

I don't believe I understand. How is it that we can kill animals humanely, but we can't kill a humane humanely?

Skipping here the very key question as to whether or not we ought to be killing humans, I'm not sure why a machine hasn't been rigged where a needle could be inserted in a vein, and then the machine triggered to administer a barbituate at the proper rate. I don't understand why we are administering a three-step process that involved paralyzing agents.

We manage to subject humans to hours of invasive (painful) surgery without them feeling pain. How is it that we cannot push a human over the edge of the great beyond without screwing up?

I assume, from the article above, that much of the problem with purposeful humane killing of humans by other humans, is that the caring kind of experienced humans you need to administer the process are morally opposed to being involved. From an Amnesty International page:

... lethal injection increases the risk that medical personnel will be involved in killing for the state, in breach of long-standing principles of medical ethics.

And, the person being killed is often unwilling. They aren't lying on a guerney awaiting surgery that is intended for their own good. Even if they are resigned to dying, they might change their mind at the last minute. Or they could move just enough to pull a needle from the vein, and drugs that don't hurt in a vein often can cause pain in surrounding tissue. (I'd twitch, damn it). Therefore restraint must be involved for even the most cooperative subject. Restraint can be as painless as possible, but restraint, by nature, is never humane. It raises the blood pressure on the best of us, even in the most benign situations.

There is a reason for the caracature of the executioner in the black hood. No kind person aspires to be an executioner--if fact many kind people have taken an oath specifically preventing them from killing--and a person who wants to be an executioner is not the kind of person you would necessarily want in the job.

This is true in the animal shelter and vet profession as well. You want caring people to be there when a pet must be put down. But killing animals--especially for merely being unwanted-- can drive a caring person over the edge.

But still, if a person is taking responsibility for the three-step execution procedure we have now, can't we make this procedure as humane for humans as it is for animals euthanized by a vet?

I'm guessing that question is entirely too simplistic.

There are better minds than mine bent upon this question.