A Tale of Two Terries

Lethal injection is terribly painful? Try 13 days without water or food.

David C. Stolinsky, M.D.
Oct. 5, 2006

Opponents of capital punishment have been unsuccessful in convincing voters or courts to ban it. So they changed their approach and now claim it is "terribly painful." But almost all states that still use capital punishment have abandoned electrocution, lethal gas or the firing squad, and now use lethal injection.

Many thousands of people have had the heartbreaking experience of having to put down a beloved dog or cat. They watched as their old friends simply lay their heads down and went to sleep. The pain of the ordeal was endured by the owners, not by the pets. But even people who do not own pets understand the love pets give and receive. Even these people know that pet owners insist on the most painless method of euthanasia.

Undeterred, opponents of capital punishment still claim that lethal injection is "terribly painful." They claim that 5 grams of Pentothal may not put the condemned murderer fully asleep, so he suffers pain when the paralyzing agent is given, followed by potassium to stop the heart. Pentothal (also called thiopental) is a fast-acting barbiturate that is often used to anesthetize dental or surgical patients. But 5 grams is about 20 times the normal dose. Such a dose, given rapidly, should cause deep anesthesia, as well as stopping breathing. Even without further injections, this should be a lethal dose.

Then what are we to make of reports that some murderers continued to breathe, or that blood tests revealed low levels of the drug? I can think of three possibilities: (1) Addicts are resistant to the effects of their drug. But barbiturate addiction is rare today. (2) Someone stole some of the drug and replaced it with water. This is unlikely, because Pentothal is hardly ever abused, and I believe the vials are sealed. (3) Opponents of capital punishment are lying. Activists can invent "facts" to support their agenda. Scientists have been known to use "cherry picking" of data and selective reporting to further their beliefs.

What to do? The easiest answer is to increase the dose of Pentothal to 10 grams, which is about 40 times the usual dose. But this begs the question, which is really, "Who says that execution of convicted murderers must be entirely painless?" Life isn’t painless. Life in prison is very far from painless. Even a hardened criminal has multiple discomforts daily in prison. To demand that execution be painless is to demand that it never be done – which is the whole idea.

There is an old saying, "Put up or shut up." This is similar to, "Put your money where your mouth is," or as they say in Missouri, "Show me." You say that 5 grams of Pentothal can leave the murderer conscious and able to feel pain and fear? Fine. Volunteer to receive that dose in a rapid IV injection, then report what you see and feel. Have observers videotape the event, so you can see yourself afterwards – if there is an afterwards. Have anesthesiologists standing by to breathe for you when you stop breathing, which you will. Note the lack of reaction when they stick the breathing tube down your windpipe, start more IVs, and push on your chest to get your heart started again – if they can.

Will anyone take this bet? Are you joking? No one really believes that a person remains conscious after receiving a massive overdose of Penthothal. They just claim to believe it, for the purpose of ending capital punishment.

But here’s something odd. Many of the "liberals" who now claim that lethal injection is "terribly painful" for convicted murderers are the very same people who claimed that 13 days without water or food were "peaceful, even pleasant" for Terri Schiavo. They nodded approval when Judge Greer (I’ll never forget his name) forbade the doctors and nurses even to wet Terri’s lips with a damp cloth or give her ice chips. And sadly, the doctors and nurses obeyed this illegal, immoral order, and the police enforced it.

And here’s something even more odd. At this point I did a word count, to see if I was rambling on too long. What do you suppose the word count showed? It was 666.

I’m no expert on the Bible. I’m hardly a mystic. But what does it say about a nation, or a civilization, if its members obsess endlessly about hypothetical pain suffered for a few moments by convicted murderers, but quickly gloss over the real pain endured for many days by innocent disabled patients?

What does it say about us, when we lie awake at night, tossing and turning as we worry about the comfort of the most brutal among us, but we drop peacefully off to sleep, unconcerned about the welfare of the most helpless among us? What does it say about our indifference to the suffering of the vulnerable? What does it say about our inverted moral compass? What does it say about our perverted value system? What does it say about our misplaced sympathy? What kind of people use up all their sympathy on murderers, and have none left for the murder victims, the survivors or the severely disabled?

You tell me.

Of course, if anyone suggested that convicted murderers should be executed by withholding water and food, the very same people would rush to court claiming that the procedure is "cruel and unusual" and "terribly painful." Now there’s a coherent argument for you. And if anyone killed a dog, a cat or even a lizard this way, they would be arrested. When it comes to being protected from cruel treatment, convicted murderers and reptiles rank far ahead of disabled humans.

All life is precious, but some lives are more precious than others. Innocent schoolgirls and disabled women must look out for themselves, but convicted murderers evoke sympathy from flocks of self-anointed "humanitarians." Anesthesia that is entirely satisfactory for us is "terribly painful" for those sentenced to death. The same method used to put a beloved dog or cat to sleep is "cruel and unusual" for a brutal criminal. In fact, though the Constitution mentions the death penalty four times, it’s also unconstitutional.

But here’s something exceptionally odd. The case that spurred opponents of capital punishment to go to federal court was that of Michael Morales. In 1981 he kidnapped, strangled, hit with a hammer 23 times, raped, then stabbed to death a 17-year-old California high-school senior. Her name was Terri Winchell.

Two innocent women – strangely, both named Terri – evoked less sympathy from the medical profession, and less concern from the legal profession, than one brutal rapist-murderer.

There you have the ultimate irony. These "humanitarians" are racked with guilt at the thought of executing a vicious rapist-murderer the same way a beloved dog or cat is put to sleep, but they are coldly indifferent to the suffering of two innocent young women named Terri. Look in the mirror and tell yourself that this position has a shred of logic, consistency or morality behind it.

I dare you.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. He may be contacted at dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com