RubySoho
Winston
Last Rights
May 29th 2007 20:02
Jack's back.
After nearly eight years in prison, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a.k.a. "Dr. Death", is due to be released on June 1st. For those people who may not remember Dr. Kevorkian, let me provide a brief synopsis of what made him famous/infamous.
Dr. Jack Kevorkian began his career as a pathologist in the 1950's. He evinced an interest in the subject of death early on, authoring several controversial papers on the subject. By the 1980's, he began publishing articles dealing with euthanasia. Specifically, he advocated for a terminally ill patient's right to die. By 1990, Dr. Kevorkian was assisting terminally ill patients in voluntarily taking their own lives. The first device involved, designed by the doctor himself, was called a 'thanotron' (death machine), and worked by hooking the patient up to the device and administering a lethal dose of chemicals once the patient pushed a button. Dr. Kevorkian only used this machine for two patients prior to having his medical license revoked. His access to the chemicals he needed now cut off, he resorted to creating a machine that killed by administering carbon monoxide through a gas mask to the patient.
Between 1990 and 1998, Dr. Kevorkian assisted in the suicides of over 100 people, all of them terminally ill and choosing to die of their own volition. His activities came to an end when he allowed a videotape to be aired on '60 Minutes', showing him administering a lethal injection to a patient (after the patient had unequivocally verified that he was requesting the shot of his own free will). Dr. Kevorkian had wrestled with the courts for years, staunchly refusing to stop assisted suicides. The difference with this case, however, was that Kevorkian himself clearly caused the death. While he had provided the means in all the other cases, the patients themselves had provided the end. This distinction made it simple to prosecute. He was brought up on murder charges, tried, and convicted.
Dr. Kevorkian spent eight years in jail for upholding an ideal. That ideal states that if a person has a fundamental right to live, that person must also have a fundamental right to end that life under certain circumstances. Let me make my feelings on suicide perfectly clear. Suicide, if undertaken by someone who is otherwise healthy, loved, etc. is a tragedy. If it is the result of depression and severe mental problems, it is deserving of grief and pity. If it is the result of someone who is simply overwhelmed and can think of nothing else to do, then it is cowardly and unfair to those left behind. In both cases, family and friends are forced to deal with a shock that no one should have to experience. The suicide victim's suffering ends the moment oblivion claims them, but for family and friends, the pain lasts a lifetime.
However, what about when someone is completely calm and lucid, but is suffering so thoroughly that death is regarded with longing? What if that victim has the blessing of his or her family, because they see the suffering and experience it themselves vicariously? Worse, what if the victim has no family to comfort them at all, and is alone with their life of pain? Why should they not be allowed to terminate their existence? Mercy takes many forms. So does cruelty. Sometimes the cruelest touch is the doctor's hand that keeps death away for another day. We can not experience another's pain, so how can anyone apart from that person determine whether or not their life is worth living?
Let me give another example in a slightly different vein. It has been a little over two years since the revolting spectacle of the Terry Schiavo case. In this case, a woman who had been kept alive by a respirator and a feeding tube for twelve years, and had been diagnosed by several doctors as having no hope of recovery, was at the center of a battle between her husband and her parents. Her parents, motivated by grief, were staunch in their fight to keep her alive. They insisted that she responded to them, that she could still 'improve'. Her husband, on the other hand, wanted to end life support and allow Terri to die, believing that existing in a persistent vegetative state maintained solely by life support was not how she would wish to be remembered. The battle raged in several courts, culminating in the Supreme Court battle of 2005.
It's hard to imagine this incident not making a list of America's least proud moments. So many people were involved in creating this perversion, I don't know where to assign the blame. Her parents railed against the decision to remove her feeding tube. Jeb Bush, then governor of Florida (where she lived) attempted to intervene, and the Florida legislature quickly passed 'Terri's Law' (a law granting Gov. Bush the authority to order Terri's feeding tube temporarily reinserted). The United States Congress then convened for an emergency session to pass a bill giving the federal courts jurisdiction in the case. President Bush made a show of cutting short his stay in Texas to fly to D.C and sign the bill into law. The tempest was whipped into further frenzy when a memo surfaced that had been circulating among Senate Republicans. The memo indicated that the Schiavo case was "a great political issue" that could be used in a campaign against a rival candidate. Ah, the purity of good intent shines through, doesn't it?
I don't want to cover the entire case. Suffice to say that despite Congress' questionably legal (and ethical) wranglings, the federal court upheld the right of Terri's husband to act on her behalf to terminate her life support. Of course, as her legal guardian, acting under the opinion and advice of a parade of doctors, his right should never have been in question. Terri finally was allowed to die with a modicum of dignity on March 31st, 2005. An autopsy of her brain revealed that (surprise, surprise!) the doctors had been absolutely correct. Her brain was so severely damaged, and so atrophied, that any semblance of awareness was illusory and any hope of recovery was impossible. This case should have been simple. In fact, it never should have been a 'case' at all. Much like with Dr. Kevorkian, the self-righteous posturing of politicians trumped individual rights and common sense.
The one positive aspect to come out the sickening circus of the Terri Schiavo case was that the American public made its distaste for the government's actions clearly known. The government's willingness to intrude in personal, individual affairs, not to mention the seeming willingness of some government officials to exploit such affairs for political gain, was poorly received by the vast majority of the nation.
We are all going to die someday. Some of us will pass away peacefully in our sleep in the comfort of our beds, having lived long, full lives. Some of us will disappear in the blink of an eye, claimed by unforeseen circumstance. Some will linger in sickness, longing for death. Some poor few of us may even end up like poor Terri, trapped in a lifeless, deathless purgatory. For most of us, death is something to be held off at arm's length for as long as possible. If we're lucky, we will be fortunate enough to never get to a point where death makes perfect, reasonable, sense. For those who do, it is to our shame that we would deny them that last right they so desperately deserve. As Dr Kevorkian said, "dying is not a crime."
UPDATE 06/09/07: youranter has written a very good post on this subject as well. He and I are pretty much on the same page on this issue, with perhaps a couple tiny differences. Check it out here.
After nearly eight years in prison, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a.k.a. "Dr. Death", is due to be released on June 1st. For those people who may not remember Dr. Kevorkian, let me provide a brief synopsis of what made him famous/infamous.
Dr. Jack Kevorkian began his career as a pathologist in the 1950's. He evinced an interest in the subject of death early on, authoring several controversial papers on the subject. By the 1980's, he began publishing articles dealing with euthanasia. Specifically, he advocated for a terminally ill patient's right to die. By 1990, Dr. Kevorkian was assisting terminally ill patients in voluntarily taking their own lives. The first device involved, designed by the doctor himself, was called a 'thanotron' (death machine), and worked by hooking the patient up to the device and administering a lethal dose of chemicals once the patient pushed a button. Dr. Kevorkian only used this machine for two patients prior to having his medical license revoked. His access to the chemicals he needed now cut off, he resorted to creating a machine that killed by administering carbon monoxide through a gas mask to the patient.
Between 1990 and 1998, Dr. Kevorkian assisted in the suicides of over 100 people, all of them terminally ill and choosing to die of their own volition. His activities came to an end when he allowed a videotape to be aired on '60 Minutes', showing him administering a lethal injection to a patient (after the patient had unequivocally verified that he was requesting the shot of his own free will). Dr. Kevorkian had wrestled with the courts for years, staunchly refusing to stop assisted suicides. The difference with this case, however, was that Kevorkian himself clearly caused the death. While he had provided the means in all the other cases, the patients themselves had provided the end. This distinction made it simple to prosecute. He was brought up on murder charges, tried, and convicted.
Dr. Kevorkian spent eight years in jail for upholding an ideal. That ideal states that if a person has a fundamental right to live, that person must also have a fundamental right to end that life under certain circumstances. Let me make my feelings on suicide perfectly clear. Suicide, if undertaken by someone who is otherwise healthy, loved, etc. is a tragedy. If it is the result of depression and severe mental problems, it is deserving of grief and pity. If it is the result of someone who is simply overwhelmed and can think of nothing else to do, then it is cowardly and unfair to those left behind. In both cases, family and friends are forced to deal with a shock that no one should have to experience. The suicide victim's suffering ends the moment oblivion claims them, but for family and friends, the pain lasts a lifetime.
However, what about when someone is completely calm and lucid, but is suffering so thoroughly that death is regarded with longing? What if that victim has the blessing of his or her family, because they see the suffering and experience it themselves vicariously? Worse, what if the victim has no family to comfort them at all, and is alone with their life of pain? Why should they not be allowed to terminate their existence? Mercy takes many forms. So does cruelty. Sometimes the cruelest touch is the doctor's hand that keeps death away for another day. We can not experience another's pain, so how can anyone apart from that person determine whether or not their life is worth living?
Let me give another example in a slightly different vein. It has been a little over two years since the revolting spectacle of the Terry Schiavo case. In this case, a woman who had been kept alive by a respirator and a feeding tube for twelve years, and had been diagnosed by several doctors as having no hope of recovery, was at the center of a battle between her husband and her parents. Her parents, motivated by grief, were staunch in their fight to keep her alive. They insisted that she responded to them, that she could still 'improve'. Her husband, on the other hand, wanted to end life support and allow Terri to die, believing that existing in a persistent vegetative state maintained solely by life support was not how she would wish to be remembered. The battle raged in several courts, culminating in the Supreme Court battle of 2005.
It's hard to imagine this incident not making a list of America's least proud moments. So many people were involved in creating this perversion, I don't know where to assign the blame. Her parents railed against the decision to remove her feeding tube. Jeb Bush, then governor of Florida (where she lived) attempted to intervene, and the Florida legislature quickly passed 'Terri's Law' (a law granting Gov. Bush the authority to order Terri's feeding tube temporarily reinserted). The United States Congress then convened for an emergency session to pass a bill giving the federal courts jurisdiction in the case. President Bush made a show of cutting short his stay in Texas to fly to D.C and sign the bill into law. The tempest was whipped into further frenzy when a memo surfaced that had been circulating among Senate Republicans. The memo indicated that the Schiavo case was "a great political issue" that could be used in a campaign against a rival candidate. Ah, the purity of good intent shines through, doesn't it?
I don't want to cover the entire case. Suffice to say that despite Congress' questionably legal (and ethical) wranglings, the federal court upheld the right of Terri's husband to act on her behalf to terminate her life support. Of course, as her legal guardian, acting under the opinion and advice of a parade of doctors, his right should never have been in question. Terri finally was allowed to die with a modicum of dignity on March 31st, 2005. An autopsy of her brain revealed that (surprise, surprise!) the doctors had been absolutely correct. Her brain was so severely damaged, and so atrophied, that any semblance of awareness was illusory and any hope of recovery was impossible. This case should have been simple. In fact, it never should have been a 'case' at all. Much like with Dr. Kevorkian, the self-righteous posturing of politicians trumped individual rights and common sense.
The one positive aspect to come out the sickening circus of the Terri Schiavo case was that the American public made its distaste for the government's actions clearly known. The government's willingness to intrude in personal, individual affairs, not to mention the seeming willingness of some government officials to exploit such affairs for political gain, was poorly received by the vast majority of the nation.
We are all going to die someday. Some of us will pass away peacefully in our sleep in the comfort of our beds, having lived long, full lives. Some of us will disappear in the blink of an eye, claimed by unforeseen circumstance. Some will linger in sickness, longing for death. Some poor few of us may even end up like poor Terri, trapped in a lifeless, deathless purgatory. For most of us, death is something to be held off at arm's length for as long as possible. If we're lucky, we will be fortunate enough to never get to a point where death makes perfect, reasonable, sense. For those who do, it is to our shame that we would deny them that last right they so desperately deserve. As Dr Kevorkian said, "dying is not a crime."
UPDATE 06/09/07: youranter has written a very good post on this subject as well. He and I are pretty much on the same page on this issue, with perhaps a couple tiny differences. Check it out here.
| 56 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Wendi
I love your paragraph about general suicide, and the reasons when it can be considered wrong, or a cop out.
It's hard to say whether or not assisted suicides in cases of terminal illness or right or wrong. I'm a dreamer, so I'm always willing to admit that we don't know what tomorrow holds and anything could change. On the same token, I was faced with an illness that did reach such points that I did consider taking my own life. Fortunately, I didn't, because my "tomorrow" brought with it change... and I survived. But, I had lots to survive for... more specifically, I wasn't ready to leave my children.
Such a sticky issue because while on one hand I can see a person's right to die if they choose, what about those who have minor children? Would we have to include a stipulation that anyone with minor children were exempt from being allowed to die? (I know, that's not the point, but I followed the fork in the road, here).
Then again, do people really need assistance to commit suicide? If a person's determined to die, they'll find a way, and it doesn't have to be greusome... they don't necessarily need "help".
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
As for the point you raise about minor children...that's an extremely pertinent observation. My wife and I talked about this post today, and she had an excellent thought, which I happen to agree with wholeheartedly. She suggested that assisted suicide be legal, but involve counseling, etc., prior to 'taking the plunge'. This seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable compromise. I am not advocating making assisted suicide as readily available as walking into the corner drug store. Obviously there needs to be some safeguards. Still, the right absolutely should exist.
As for why people need help? Comfort, I suppose. Personally, I would find it easier to have assistance from someone with experience. Otherwise, I might not be able to follow through due to fear of pain or messing the whole thing up and not even managing to kill myself properly. Hopefully it is not something I will ever need to consider, but I damn well want the option if it comes down to it!
Thanks for the feedback
Comment by Wendi
I have to agree, it seems like a reasonable solution! Your wife sounds like a pretty smart cookie!!
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
As for your wife being a smart cookie, I thought I had found the last woman who could be conned by a guy like me, lol.
Keep writing buddy, you've got talent.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Seriously, thanks for the feedback. I realize that you and I come from different perspectives on a lot of issues, which is great. If everyone agreed about everything, what would we talk about?
This issue, though.....it blows my mind that some people disagree. Vehemently so. Who wants the government telling them how to handle the very most fundamental, personal right they have? Others may be willing to acquiesce to that sort of control. I am not.
As you can see above, I am giving a plug for your blog on the subject. Maybe we can change the minds of some people on the fence...
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Talk to you later, take care.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
BTW, re: your fist comment, I don't know your wife, but if she's anything like mine, you're both very lucky AND you've got your hands full
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
And you're half-way right about my wife. I'm the one who got really lucky. Now she's stuck keeping me on the straight and narrow. But yes, we're both very happy and I haven't been that way in a long time.