Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

tamias6

Doctor Death gets out of Prison

37 posts in this topic

Remember Jack Kavokrian, the assisted suicide doctor? He's getting out of prison.

Article

Thought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


"Mayer Morganroth, Kevorkian's attorney, said in July that his client had less than a year to live." If he really only has a year left to live, I say mine as well give him the chance to be free instead of dying in jail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, he should have been let free. I think he had a noble cause, but he should have spent his energy on trying to get the law changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of being called Dr.Death, he should be called Dr.Compassion.

This is a man who simply wanted to end other's suffering, when they didn't have the strength to do it themselves. Every patient he assisted seeked out Dr. Kevorkian. It wasn't like Kevorkian was going out looking for patients to do in.

This is a man full of love. He understands death. He doesn't think misery and death have to go hand in hand.

Why on earth he was ever put in prison is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Instead of being called Dr.Death, he should be called Dr.Compassion.

This is a man who simply wanted to end other's suffering, when they didn't have the strength to do it themselves. Every patient he assisted seeked out Dr. Kevorkian. It wasn't like Kevorkian was going out looking for patients to do in.

This is a man full of love. He understands death. He doesn't think misery and death have to go hand in hand.

Why on earth he was ever put in prison is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good! But I agree with y'all, I don't even think he should have been in prison in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good! But I agree with y'all, I don't even think he should have been in prison in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


In the future, Dr. Kevorkian will be looked back on as a visionary..... someone who couldn't tolerate seeing a fellow human being in end-life agony.

As an ex medical professional, I can tell you that seeing firsthand the kind of suffering that Dr. Kevorkian saw is utterly heartbreaking. You come home from work, but in your mind's eye you still see that patient lying there in agony, with no hope of recovery. It will flat out break your heart.

All Dr. Kevorkian was guilty of was defying immoral American laws. People who were absolutely dying, and severely suffering, who needed help to let go, certainly didn't see Dr. Kevorkian as some kind of heartless murderer.

Of course I think we all agree Kevorkian stepped over the boundaries of good taste during his court appearances.....but we'll forgive a bit of eccentricity when it comes to supporting a man who is 100% correct in his philosophies of death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the future, Dr. Kevorkian will be looked back on as a visionary..... someone who couldn't tolerate seeing a fellow human being in end-life agony.

As an ex medical professional, I can tell you that seeing firsthand the kind of suffering that Dr. Kevorkian saw is utterly heartbreaking. You come home from work, but in your mind's eye you still see that patient lying there in agony, with no hope of recovery. It will flat out break your heart.

All Dr. Kevorkian was guilty of was defying immoral American laws. People who were absolutely dying, and severely suffering, who needed help to let go, certainly didn't see Dr. Kevorkian as some kind of heartless murderer.

Of course I think we all agree Kevorkian stepped over the boundaries of good taste during his court appearances.....but we'll forgive a bit of eccentricity when it comes to supporting a man who is 100% correct in his philosophies of death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was told that legally DNR is not actively assisting in the death. My grandmother had a DNR order on the wall beside her bed when she died.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was told that legally DNR is not actively assisting in the death. My grandmother had a DNR order on the wall beside her bed when she died.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DNR means "Do Not Resuscitate". In simple terms, "don't stop what is going to happen naturally (death)". Assisting suicide is actively bringing death to someone who would not die at that time naturally.

It's wrong, illegal and he was rightfully convicted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it's illegal, but I certainly don't see it as wrong or immoral. As someone said earlier, we put suffering pets to sleep when it is readily apparent they are close to death. Do human beings not deserve the same consideration?

If I'm in agony every breathing moment, in physical torment, and there is no chance of a recovery, then I feel dying quickly is the natural way to go. If it ever happens to me, and I'm not able to carry it out myself, then hopefully someone as humanitarian as Dr. Kevorkian could help me let go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DNR means "Do Not Resuscitate". In simple terms, "don't stop what is going to happen naturally (death)". Assisting suicide is actively bringing death to someone who would not die at that time naturally.

It's wrong, illegal and he was rightfully convicted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I see what you're saying and I agree with you. However, Dr. K should have stayed on the down low and not gotten so much publicity because what he did was against the law and for good reason.

Suppose someone decides that random people are in insufferable pain and decides to 'assist' them. The problem really is who gets to make these decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a point there, you are right, but we don't allow the people suffering themselves to make this decision, and really there is no one better. If someone else wants to do die, it is really simple selfishness that leads another to interfere, whether it is guised in love or not. At a basic level, independent of religion, culture, our biases, anything at all, it does not affect you and is not your business what someone else wants to do with themselves provided it does not harm you. I suppose that is an opinion, but I just don't see any plausible arguments against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 100% of the assisted suicide cases Dr. Kevorkian was involved in, the PATIENTS made the decision to end their agonizing lives. Before each case was decided on, Dr. Kevorkian went totally overboard with counseling, and endless discussions in each case he was involved in. He did make any snap decisions about any patient he came in contact with. His approach was always cautious and his processes were all above board and spelled out by the patients and their families. Never by Kevorkian.

I'm just perplexed as to how this kind of ultra humanitarianism could be seen as wrong or immoral (?)

oops: he did NOT make any snap decisions:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Agreed, he is certainly a good example of how this can work well, which is why it is preplexing that he would get convicted by any jury. There are laws we don't enforce in this country still on the books, and 90% of people disobey the speed limit, so I don't get the "lawful" arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it's immoral for us to help other people die, or kill other people (which is what he did). He injected them with a drug to kill them. If you apply the standard of "it was to end their suffering", then couldn't you say we should then wipe out half of Darfur, to end their suffering? Or how about all those people who were left behind in New Orleans after the hurricanes? They looked like they were suffering horrendously. Should we have just nuked the place? Or a poor mother of two kids who works three jobs and is near suicidal. Should I run over her with a car if she asks me to? Who sets the standard as to what is "suffering"? What about heroine addicts? If you say, "those people chose to be in that situation", then what if the patient is suffering from years of drinking and drug abuse, but his/her body just won't give out? Are they fair game?

At least with physicians, there is an established body of peers to monitor the ethical practices of one another. Nothing like that exists for euthenasia, and I can't even imagine who would write the constitution for such a body. The minute Kervorkian decided to do this, he renounced his M.D. (regardless of how you feel on the issue). So now he's just some random guy injecting people.

Does my heart go out to the people who suffer greatly? Of course. But killing them is not the answer.

BTW: I'm also consistently against abortion and the death penalty, FWIW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not the same as ending the suffering for those in Darfur, or in New Orleans. One, we're talking about people who are choosing to die, because they are in great pain or some other circumstance they cannot live with. As far as who sets the standard as to what is "suffering", I think the answer is pretty obvious - the person who is suffering. And no one else, that is the point, whether or not it is your opinion that a person wanting relief from some nightmare via death is appropriate or allowable. Ultimately it has nothing to do with you, or is even your business, but is their choice, so I don't see why you'd push your morality on someone who does not agree with you when again, it has nothing to do with you. It would be like me telling you you should be Hindu and then making it law. These are people in pain, usually with terminal illnesses, what possible reason could you have for prolonging the suffering when they do not want to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is not the same as ending the suffering for those in Darfur, or in New Orleans. One, we're talking about people who are choosing to die, because they are in great pain or some other circumstance they cannot live with. As far as who sets the standard as to what is "suffering", I think the answer is pretty obvious - the person who is suffering. And no one else, that is the point, whether or not it is your opinion that a person wanting relief from some nightmare via death is appropriate or allowable. Ultimately it has nothing to do with you, or is even your business, but is their choice, so I don't see why you'd push your morality on someone who does not agree with you when again, it has nothing to do with you. It would be like me telling you you should be Hindu and then making it law. These are people in pain, usually with terminal illnesses, what possible reason could you have for prolonging the suffering when they do not want to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because it's murder (in every sense of the word), that's why. The issue has nothing to do with allowing these people to die. Kervorkian did not "let them die", he actively killed them. He did not remove them from a ventilator. He did not remove a feeding tube. He injected them with poison. That's the difference. I'm not telling them they have to live, I'm just agreeing with the law that says no one can kill you, no matter how much you want to die. In fact, I think the laws against suicide are silly. If people want to kill themselves, who are we to say they can't? Just don't ask someone else to pull the trigger. But that's the law.

Maybe many of the people in Darfur want to die?

What possible good is there to setting up a wholesale system where we kill people who want to die? Unfortunately there are times in life when we have to suffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are against war as well, and therefore against our government, because they have no problem with murder and people killing other people.

As to committing suicide, what if you can't do it, as is usually the case when we're talking about the kind of people who are in this situation to begin with, such as paralysis victims, those too weak from a sickness (Cancer, AIDS, etc.), too overweight, etc.?. Saying someone else did the killing, and not the person desiring it, is just a game of semantics, and has little other significance. If I am suffering one day, and I assume you have seen people who are really suffering, it is should be a crime to do nothing and prolong my pain.

The people in Darfur may want to die, and I have no real answer on how to deal with that, perhaps send in our military and risk another Iraq? I really don't know on that one, what is your solution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the difference between putting down a dog or cat suffering from the final stages of cancer and ending the life of a terminally ill patient suffering from the final stages of the same type of cancer? If there is no hope of recovery for the terminally ill patient and he/ she is suffering in horrible agony to point of laying in a hospital bed screaming and mowning in pain and pain killers are no longer effective, are we not adding to that patient's suffering by keeping him/her alive? If I where termialy ill and at this stage of the game where I'm out of my mind in pain, I would without question want somebody to pull the plug and just let me go.

I believe it's immoral for us to help other people die, or kill other people (which is what he did). He injected them with a drug to kill them. If you apply the standard of "it was to end their suffering", then couldn't you say we should then wipe out half of Darfur, to end their suffering? Or how about all those people who were left behind in New Orleans after the hurricanes? They looked like they were suffering horrendously. Should we have just nuked the place? Or a poor mother of two kids who works three jobs and is near suicidal. Should I run over her with a car if she asks me to? Who sets the standard as to what is "suffering"? What about heroine addicts? If you say, "those people chose to be in that situation", then what if the patient is suffering from years of drinking and drug abuse, but his/her body just won't give out? Are they fair game?

At least with physicians, there is an established body of peers to monitor the ethical practices of one another. Nothing like that exists for euthenasia, and I can't even imagine who would write the constitution for such a body. The minute Kervorkian decided to do this, he renounced his M.D. (regardless of how you feel on the issue). So now he's just some random guy injecting people.

Does my heart go out to the people who suffer greatly? Of course. But killing them is not the answer.

BTW: I'm also consistently against abortion and the death penalty, FWIW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.