A death row inmate’s execution is stayed because the use of a lethal injection during his execution (sic!) might constitute a cased of cruel punishment, which is banned under the US constitution. Using the drugs, not the execution itself, don’t get this wrong.
But it doesn’t stop here – two doctors are called to make sure the inmate is not “cruelly punished” during his execution, but they decide they cannot go through with their attempt to ensure the humane execution of the execution, because if the inmate appeared to sense anything – again, while being executed – they would have to step in to help him in order not to break the hippocratic oath (or something to that effect).
Here’s the thing: if subset a (lethal injection to execute a person) of the set b (the execution as a whole) is sufficient to make the process cruel and then rule it out by law, how come there are still 640 people on the death row in California?