From what I've read, it's due to the fact that they're strapping a mask to their faces. The exhaled gasses have nowhere to go, it mixes with the inert gas, and doesn't cause a loss of consciousness as quickly as intended.

Even if they managed the exhaled CO2 correctly (wtf they didn't?!), that requires the CO2 to actually be exhaled. But someone who doesn't want to die that's being killed by asphyxiation is naturally going to hold their breath, which means the CO2 stays in them, ruining the whole point.

Inert gas seems like a great choice for a self elected procedure, but could probably never go well for execution, because the theory of why it works (asphyxiation without the CO2 buildup that causes pain) requires cooperation.

[–] RION@hexbear.net 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean "ideally" they'd be totally put under so they can't hold their breath. But the cruelty is the point and so forth

[–] Chronicon@hexbear.net 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

then you might as well kill them with the drugs used to put them under. but they can't get very many medical professionals or medicine companies to go along with that

I guess intubation would work but again intubation by non professionals would probably be extremely painful and cruel

[–] halykthered@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago

If they had done it in a chamber as opposed to a mask, holding their breath would give more time for the oxygen to be displaced, so that first desperate gasp as their lungs could bear no longer, would be pure nitrogen and they'd be unconscious fairly quickly.

But, like another responder said, cruelty is the point.