It is a big story in Michigan. After 8 years in jail Dr. Jack is out. He is sick and probably does not have long to live.
I met him once. I also worked with a guy whos grandmother got Kevorkianed. She was in her 70s. Her husband died. Her kids were gone gone and she had oldtimers disease. She was a professional when she was young and bright. Or so her grandson told me.
When the alzheimers started to take effect it bothered her. She could see a future she did not want to go to. As her memory failed and she gradually required more and more help, she decided to go through with it.
Was she or Dr. Jack wrong?
Yes, he violated the law and established medical ethics. While I have some sympathy for what he was doing, and don’t think he was necessarily a bad guy, the law and medical ethics IMO are clear on what he did as being wrong.
I feel that euthanasia for the old/sick is a somewhat dangerous road to go down. In the Netherlands there has been several reports about how doctors are getting greater decision making power about who should be “put down” and I don’t think that is the type of authority doctors should have.
I’d only really support a system of elective cessation of life in cases where it is 100% unambiguously clear that that is SPECIFICALLY what the patient wants.
Look, Kevorkian could have accomplished exactly the same thing and still followed the letter of the law. His earlier procedure of providing a method for an person to press the button that released the drugs into an IV kept him within the law. But that wasn’t good enough for him. He wanted to be able to inject the drugs himself, to prove some kind of point. It wasn’t about the patients, his roundabout methods provided the “service” the suicidal patients wanted without crossing any legal barriers.
Neither of which (particularly “the law”) means what he did was wrong. Illegal, yes, and probably against the view of his colleagues, but that doesn’t make it morally wrong. I have heard varying things about how he did what he did; if he never pressured a patient and only assisted people who were of sound mind and definitely wanted to die, I don’t have a problem with what he did.
For the most part, laws are just a collection of the morals of the people who made them.
Euthanasia is not something I’m ready to embrace, whether it’s voluntary or not.
Incidentally, the disease is Alzheimer’s.
True. But again, “against the morals of others” doesn’t mean “wrong,” especially when we’re talking about our individual opinions.
To restate:
Illegal and immoral are not synonyms. “Wrong” is imprecise.
Saying “2 + 2 = 5” is wrong, as in “incorrect.” But by itself it is neither illegal nor immoral.
Many people consider smoking tobacco to be immoral. Nevertheless, it is legal.
Many people do not consider smoking marijuana to be immoral. Nevertheless, it is in many places illegal.
However, to many people, doing something illegal is in and of itself immoral.
IMHO as far as euthanasia, it is usually immoral, and in most places illegal. In other very specific cases I’d consider it to be a moral choice.
And i fully support your right not to participate in euthanasia, your own or anyone else’s.
Just leave me free to do what the hell i want with my own life.
But it wasn’t her doing what the hell she wants with her own life. It was Dr. Kevorkian doing whatever the hell she wanted with her life. The distinction is pretty important.
Yeah, i was never sure exactly why he insisted on taking the next step. I guess it was part of an argument about cases where the patient could not give consent, and where Kevorkian believed that a doctor should be able to make the decision in the patient’s best interest. (I could be wrong about that; it’s a while since i read anything about him.)
Personally, i have no problem with assisted suicide at all. If a person decides that they would prefer death to whatever pain or incapacitation they are suffering, that should be their choice to make. Kevorkian’s method allowing the patient to push the button seemed fine to me.
In cases where the patient can’t make such a decision, and there is clear and incontrovertible evidence that they will never recover to lead anything like a normal life, i support the option of turning off all aids to life. The Terry Schiavo case is a good example.
I’m a little more ambivalent about actively causing such a person’s death via an injection or something. That’s a much more fraught area, i think.
But you referred to euthanasia in general, not Kevorkian’s case. And indeed you specifically stated you wouldn’t be happy with it, “voluntary or not”.
Firstly, you made a general comment about euthanasia, not a comment about a specific case. Just in case you have trouble remembering what you typed less than two hours ago, i’ll quote it here for you:
It was that general comment that i was responding to. I made no comment whatsoever about any particular case.
Also, i’m not sure who the “her” is that you’re referring to. The person who Kevorkian was convicted of killing was a man, Thomas Youk. From what i’ve read of the case, there’s every indication that Youk wanted Kevorkian to help him die. Youk’s family has always maintained that position, and has been consistently supportive of Kevorkian. This doesn’t necessarily mean that Kevorkian did the right thing, but i’ve never seen any evidence that he wants to kill people against their own wishes.
ETA:
Damn, R.T., too quick for me!
To clarify, I am not willing to support the notion that one human ought to be allowed to assist in another human being’s death, whether the one who is dying gives consent or not.
The woman that Kevorkian assisted in the original post.
That’s an interesting position, actually. Generally it’s the actual death part that people seem to disagree with. Am I right in saying that you’re fine (or at least, accepting) of the notion that a person can terminate their own life? What is it about getting help that makes the situation worse than someone killing themselves?
Excellent question. To me, the ultimate right that a human can assert is the right to end his life at will. If he is physically unable to do so, then assistance should be available to him.
Well, i see no evidence in the OP that she died unwillingly, or that Kevorkian acted against her wishes.
In fact, the OP specifically states that “she decided to go through with it.”
If you have any evidence to the contrary, i’d be pleased to see it.
Suicide is distasteful to me, just as I’m sure it is to almost everyone else. I accept the notion that a person ought to be allowed to terminate their own life.
I oppose assisted suicide because the only thing we can realistically use to oversee it is someone’s promise that their intentions are good. I just don’t trust anyone enough to allow them to kill anyone else, and I don’t think anyone should have the authority to ultimately decide who lives and who dies.
Make no mistake, Kevorkian “decided” to kill his patients every bit as much as his patients decided to die, unless you’re willing to claim that he wasn’t in control of his actions.
Your post makes absolutely no sense.
Why do we have to rely on the intentions of the person assisting the suicide? Why not just ask the person who wants to die: “Do you want to die? And do you want this person to help you die?” If they say “yes,” why do the intentions of the assisting person matter at all?
Also, you just said “I accept the notion that a person ought to be allowed to terminate their own life,” yet now you say “I don’t think anyone should have the authority to ultimately decide who lives and who dies.” But surely the first sentence quoted suggests that the “authority to ultimately decide who lives and who dies” can, in fact, be exerted by a person over his or her own life.
Of course he was in control of his actions, and of course he “decided” to undertake assisting them in their suicide.
He “decided” to kill them after making sure that they had “decided” that they wanted to die, and after they had “decided” that they wanted him to help them die.
Every post you make gets more illogical.
I’m afraid i’m with mhendo on this one.
I’m afraid I personally wouldn’t want to make such a broad statement.
Well, now. I’m confused. You do, in fact, think someone should have the authority to decide who lives and who dies, in the limited capacity that you think a person should have the authority to decide that they themselves die. And in the case of assisted suicide, that is exactly what is occurring; the person themselves is making the choice as to die. The assistant isn’t claiming the authority to decide; al they are doing is claiming the authority to fulfil another’s wishes, at that person’s own behest.
You seem to be mixing up two situations. If you’re saying “I don’t trust someone to kill another person, because the “victim” might not actually want to be killed”, then hey, that’s fair. But what you seem to be saying is that even in situations where it is clear, no one should help. I’m very confused by that.
Yes, Kevorkian did decide to kill them. He was following their wishes (or at least, that is the idea behind assisted suicide). What’s your point? It’s not as if the two are seperate things. If they had not decided to die, he would not have decided to follow their wishes. What’s the “bad” thing here? You seem to be suggesting Kevorkian was motivated by something other than the person’s wishes, here. And, indeed, that anyone who helps kill someone who wants to die has an ulterior motive. I hope i’m misunderstanding you.