Barbaro and the Barbarians

David C. Stolinsky, M.D.
Feb. 1, 2007

Months after he broke his leg, the famous racehorse Barbaro had to be euthanized. His owners and veterinarians sadly concluded that no more surgeries could be expected to relieve his pain and allow him to walk normally. His death evoked an outpouring of sympathy from thousands of people across the nation. They all sensed the love of those in charge of the horse’s care.

When I heard that Barbaro had been put down, I was sad, but I was also angry. No, I wasn’t angry that he had been euthanized. On the contrary, having had to make a similarly painful decision myself, I felt great empathy with Barbaro’s owners. My anger had a different source.

News reports did not disclose the method used to euthanize Barbaro. According to the University of California School of Veterinary Medicine, there are various methods of euthanizing horses and other large animals.

The preferred methods are injection of barbiturates and captive-bolt guns. The former is similar to euthanasia of dogs and cats, and requires an IV and a licensed veterinarian. The latter involves a special pistol that uses a blank cartridge to fire a bolt that penetrates the animal’s skull, but the bolt is held captive by the pistol. This method is safer than using a normal firearm, which carries the risk of injuring bystanders by a ricochet. Since Barbaro was under constant care of veterinarians, I assume injection of barbiturates was used.

I love animals. We had to put our 14-year-old Airedale terrier to sleep over a year ago, and I still haven’t gotten over it. I doubt that I ever will. We confirmed that her cancer was widespread, then waited till she was no longer comfortable. We took her to the vet, said goodbye, and watched as the vet injected a massive overdose of barbiturate. Her head fell back, and that was it. She had no pain – the pain was all ours. But we had no regrets. We knew we had done the most loving thing for her that was in our power.

Can you guess the source of my anger? The news that a beautiful horse was euthanized evoked only sadness from the public. On the contrary, the news that a vicious murderer is to be executed evokes outraged protests from much of the public, and deep opposition from liberal judges.

Consider the story of Barbaro, then consider the story of Michael Morales. His execution was scheduled to occur on February 21, 2006. But it didn’t take place. The reasons are both complex and simple – complex from a legal point of view, but simple from a moral point of view.

In 1981, a quarter-century ago, Michael Morales murdered Terri Winchell, a 17-year-old Lodi, California high school senior. The motive was "payback" to the girl for unknowingly dating the boyfriend of his bisexual cousin. He lured the girl into a car and tried to strangle her with a belt, but it broke. Then he hit her with a hammer 23 times until she was unrecognizable, raped her, stabbed her four times – and dumped her body in the dirt.

Morales’ photo appeared frequently in newspaper accounts of the cancelled execution. Winchell’s photo appeared rarely, and descriptions of the brutal crime appeared more rarely still. Journalists really know what’s important, don’t they?

Morales admitted his crime, was convicted and sentenced to death. For 25 years, the case bounced from one appeals court to another, like a ball in a game of legal ping-pong. During this time, California’s gas chamber was ruled "cruel and unusual," and lethal injection was substituted. Millions of people have had anesthesia for surgical or diagnostic procedures, and many others have had to put beloved animals to sleep. The painless nature of anesthesia by injection is common knowledge.

Despite all this, opponents of capital punishment continue to claim that lethal injection is "terribly painful," and therefore unconstitutional. One theory holds that prisoners may wake up from the sedative and find themselves paralyzed. This would be frightening, but it is most unlikely. I didn’t wake up from a light dose of sedative and feel the surgeon cutting into me during an operation. Why would a prisoner wake up from a massive, lethal dose of a stronger sedative? But even if he did, the fear would only last seconds, until the heart-stopping potassium was injected. The whole idea is so far-fetched as to be absurd.

Nevertheless, U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel agreed that the procedure was "prone to error." Really? Are there any prisoners executed by lethal injection who are still walking around? That would be an error.

Accordingly, Judge Fogel postponed the execution and ordered that two anesthesiologists be present, to assure that the prisoner was indeed unconscious. But no physician would agree to take part in an execution. Such activity is contrary to the Hippocratic Oath, and to the principles of medical ethics of the American Medical Association.

Of course, starving and dehydrating disabled Terri Schiavo to death was even more contrary to the Hippocratic Oath, but somehow that didn’t stop the doctors and nurses from carrying out the Florida judge’s order. An innocent woman evoked less sympathy from the medical profession, and less concern from the legal profession, than a brutal rapist-murderer. How revealing.

These are the same people who told us that 13 days without food or water, or even a wet cloth for her cracked lips, were "peaceful" and even "pleasant" for Terri Schiavo. But now they agonize about a few seconds of hypothetical discomfort for someone who had already received a lethal dose of a powerful sedative. This goes beyond the illogical and reaches the irrational.

All executions in California are now on indefinite hold. Perhaps opponents of capital punishment will succeed in delaying things until Morales dies of old age, which is the most common cause of death on California’s Death Row. But don’t worry. There are over 600 murderers on Death Row, but California executes one a year on the average, so it won’t make much practical difference.

When Morales’s execution was cancelled, the victim’s elderly mother said, "We have lived with a knife in our hearts for all these years, and this makes the knife even sharper." But the judge gave the victim no thought in his deliberations, and he gave her survivors even less thought. The welfare of the murderer was his sole concern. Opponents of the death penalty held a candlelight vigil at the prison. There was no vigil at the home of the victim’s parents.

All life is precious, but some lives are more precious than others. Innocent schoolgirls and disabled women must look out for themselves, but convicted rapist-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 beloved animals 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.

As George Orwell said, some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them. But even he was an optimist. Some ideas are so morally perverse, so kind to the guilty and so cruel to the innocent, that only a "humanitarian" could believe them.

We accept as painless the euthanizing of Barbaro, while we protest as "terribly painful" the execution by lethal injection of barbarians. But what really is terribly painful is to reflect on what kind of people we have become.

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

www.stolinsky.com