Question: What do capital punishment, the recent death of Barcelona’s famed albino gorilla Snowflake, and the Terri Schiavo case have in common?

Answer: a death sentence.

A segment of the public is angry because Florida governor Jeb Bush interrupted the passive euthanasia demanded by Schiavo’s husband, approved by the courts, and begun by the doctors.

Snowflake was euthanized when it became clear that the gorilla suffered from incurable skin cancer and faced an agonizing demise.

As for capital punishment, that comes when the state determines that a person no longer deserves life.

Now let’s take a closer look.

One of the four U.S. constitutional protections is that criminals can’t be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Thus, those states that invoke the death penalty seek to ensure that death comes as quickly and painlessly as possible.

The same applies to animals. Most of us have taken a much-loved pet to the veterinarian when we’ve realized that the pain quotient has reached unacceptable levels and a cure isn’t possible. We may have shed tears, but we knew we were doing the right thing.

Whether taking the life of an animal or a criminal, we’d never dream of providing painkillers but withholding food and water, just waiting for "nature to take its course." But let an average citizen reach a point where life is so compromised that death is preferable, and we suddenly get squeamish.

Legally, we can cease providing nutrition and hydration, but we can’t actively terminate life—even though such intervention would ensure a quick and painless death.

The fact is, withholding nutrition and hydration causes death. Guaranteed. No person thus deprived has ever survived indefinitely. It’s just a matter of time, be it days or weeks.

Which raises a question: Would oxygen deprivation be inherently different from deprivation of any other vital life-sustaining substance?

When death is the desired result, and we’re willing to pursue a course that guarantees it, should we not seek to make it quick and painless? Theologians, ethicists, doctors, and legislators need to consider this matter seriously and dispassionately.

I’m neither advocating nor attacking active euthanasia. I’m just asking for consistency—because, somewhere along the line, our logic has really become skewed.

Pontius Pilate publicly washed his hands. Today we seek shelter by distancing cause from effect. But a death sentence is a death sentence.

We need to admit the realities and pass legislation that allows the grief-stricken to treat their loved one with at least the same compassion we show toward criminals and animals. Or we need to agree that there’s always merit in keeping people alive, no matter what their quality of life or their level of pain.

Whether viewed from the right, the left, or the perspective of common sense, our current middle-ground approach is far from the moral high ground.

This article was published first in the Orlando, Florida, Sentinel on December 11, 2003.

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE