I'm sure if it was reported that the inmate couldn't eat or was having panic attacks, there would be those who would be fine with that, given the fear, pain and suffering endured by the victims, but that's not really my point.  I don't so much care how the inmate approaches his own death as much as I think it's bizarre that we think that by offering someone their desired last meal before we kill them that we have preserved our own humanity.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/nov/29/eu-britain-us-death-penalty/

Britain does not have capital punishment and yet the LA Times has reported that "Arizona officials said they had obtained a supply of the drug from a British company."  

Surely, the exporting and importing of this drug/chemical from Britain into the US by 'Arizona officials' for specifically carrying-out this lethal act would contravene British and international law, and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  I believe the same question would arise if the drug were already on-shore and held as inventory by the British company if it is acting through a channel.  Perhaps the lawyers of the decedent should have been before the English House of Lords to obtain the desired remedy.

nyrias:

May be we should make it cheaper.

it used to be. unfortunately, cheaper leads to greater use, which leads to more innocent parties being executed. in fact, in china, it's really, really cheap: a single bullet to the back of the head. they execute lots and lots of people. in an odd coincidence, they also have a burgeoning human "spare parts" industry, fueled by executed prisoners. go figure.