How do RPFers / Libertarians feel about Jack Kevorkian?

[RileyE104]

I just saw the Al Pacino movie.. It was great.

Here's an interview with Cavuto..

YouTube - Jack Kevorkian : Dr. Death - "I Am Honest And Is There A God ?" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVHM-vrP9u4)


After seeing the above interview, I have to say I like the guy...
I think it was a shame he was sent to prison.

[WaltM]

what do you think about Nancy Cruzan & Terri Schaivo?

[RileyE104]

@ 6:52 from the video above ---

"Choices are important in life. You gotta have choices. It's your body, your life. You have every right to think and say and do anything you want, as long as you do not HARM or THREATEN ANYBODY OR ANY PROPERTY. That's freedom, and we're far from that." - Dr. Jack Kevorkian.

Now, that sounds like something DIRECTLY from Ron Paul's mouth.

[RileyE104]

what do you think about Nancy Cruzan & Terri Schaivo?

IDK who Nancy Cruzan is, but I do know who Terri Schaivo is.

In the movie, Dr. Kevorkian asked a question similar to this: Why is appropriate and legal for one adult to make a decision to pull the plug on another adult, allowing them to die, but it's not considered appropriate for one adult to decide to "pull the plug" on themselves?

[RileyE104]

In the movie, Dr. Kevorkian was interviewing a couple in a hotel room. All of a sudden, the police barge in.
They start shouting, and one of the cops shout out "We're here to save your life!" - The woman screamed at them "Who asked you!?"

To me, this is the same argument for ending the War on Drugs.

Your body, your choice..

So I'm with Dr. K on this one... I just wanted to know how everyone else here felt.

[low preference guy]

my opinion is that if you want to die, kill yourself. i'm against legalizing assisted suicide because it could lead to people faking consent to murder someone.

[cindy25]

my opinion is that if you want to die, kill yourself. i'm against legalizing assisted suicide because it could lead to people faking consent to murder someone.

there can be safeguards; some people are too ill to do it without help

[cindy25]

what do you think about Nancy Cruzan & Terri Schaivo?

does anyone know if Schaivo's family was willing to pay for her endless useless care?

her case was not assisted suicide, it was pulling the plug

[low preference guy]

there can be safeguards; some people are too ill to do it without help

get better until you are able to buy a gun and pull the trigger.

if you can't, too bad. i wouldn't risk allowing a system which freaks doctors can use to murder people.

[ClayTrainor]

If I ever become terminally ill, and in severe pain, I would like for there to be an option besides suffering. From what I know about Dr. Kevorkian, I like him and completely support what he did on the basis that it was 100% consensual.

[RileyE104]

my opinion is that if you want to die, kill yourself. i'm against legalizing assisted suicide because it could lead to people faking consent to murder someone.

I get what you're saying, but the case made in the movie was that they wanted a "clean death" mainly for their families (i guess). Instead of dying in pain or dying in some sort of situation like a gunshot to the head which would leave a mess for their families to clean up or see, they wanted an easier and calmer way out.

[ClayTrainor]

get better until you are able to buy a gun and pull the trigger. if you can't, too bad.

Because you say so? How about I take responsibility for my own life, and you leave me alone... mmmkay? ;)

[low preference guy]

Because you say so? How about I take responsibility for my own life, and you leave me alone... mmmkay? ;)

how about I kill the person I feel like killing, and you leave me alone... mmmkay? ;)

[ClayTrainor]

how about I kill the person I feel like killing, and you leave me alone... mmmkay? ;)

Without their consent?

[RileyE104]

how about I kill the person I feel like killing, and you leave me alone... mmmkay? ;)

What are you talking about?? this whole debate comes down to the role of Government.

From a Kevorkian FB page:
"Human beings have a right to die when they choose to, since they own their own bodies and their own lives. To have laws against assisted suicide that the individual WANTS means that the government OWNS your life, which is appallingly and violently immoral."


I look at this issue just as I do the War on Drugs. It's not the Government's right to tell you what to do with your body.

Read this Ron Paul quote: "When we give Government the power to make medical decisions for us, we, in essence, accept that the State owns our bodies."

That is strikingly similar to the Kevorkian quote above, and I think the logic behind this issue is perfectly in line with our movement.

[ClayTrainor]

how about I kill the person I feel like killing, and you leave me alone... mmmkay? ;)

This does not justify your right to make my decisions for me, btw :)

I say again... How about I take responsibility for my own life, and you leave me alone ;)

[low preference guy]

Without their consent?

that's what will happen if assisted suicide is legalized. people will die without their consent. just like when the death penalty is legal, innocent people are executed.

[low preference guy]

This does not justify your right to make my decisions for me, btw :)

I say again... How about I take responsibility for my own life, and you leave me alone ;)

i'm just stating plainly what your statement truly means.

i'll leave you alone, as long as you don't attack my life or someone else's, even when you claim you're attacking someone with their consent.

[RileyE104]

that's what will happen if assisted suicide is legalized. people will die without their consent. just like when the death penalty is legal, innocent people are executed.

So I guess you're in favor of keeping up the War on Drugs? If we legalize drugs people might flock at the opportunity to smoke Crack, right??

If people want to commit suicide, THEY ARE GOING TO DO IT OR TRY IT.

Why not instead give them an opportunity to leave this Earth in a controlled and in a peaceful manner?

Plus you're not understanding the issue fully. Kevorkian was assisting people who were badly sick and in pain and ready to die instead of waiting it out and having an agonizing death.

[low preference guy]

So I guess you're in favor of keeping up the War on Drugs? If we legalize drugs people might flock at the opportunity to smoke Crack, right??

non-sequitur. when people harm themselves, there is no crime.

[RileyE104]

non-sequitur. when people harm themselves, there is no crime.


Before Kevorkian gave the shot himself, he allowed the patients to basically kill themselves. All he did was provide a way for them to do it in a peaceful manner.

Although I think that way is better, I still don't see anything wrong with Kevorkian giving the shot himself. He had permission from the person and their families. How is that any different from a family deciding to pull the plug on a dying family member? I mean, at least Kevorkian's way, he has the actual patient's permission.

[low preference guy]

Why not instead give them an opportunity to leave this Earth in a controlled and in a peaceful manner?


because by doing so, you're also giving freak doctors the opportunity to fake consent of innocent people and kill them.

[low preference guy]

Before Kevorkian gave the shot himself, he allowed the patients to basically kill themselves. All he did was provide a way for them to do it in a peaceful manner.

i'm still against it because it's a slippery slope. the function of government for me it to protect life, not protect the destruction of life.

[ClayTrainor]

that's what will happen if assisted suicide is legalized. people will die without their consent.


There should be standards for such a practice. If someone I know and cared about was making that decision, I would make dam sure that they had written, audio and video confirmation of the consent. Where do you get the right to enforce your will on my family, if we made this voluntary decision on our own?



just like when the death penalty is legal, innocent people are executed.

Apples and oranges. Convicting innocent people of crimes is always wrong, death penalty or not.

[RileyE104]

because by doing so, you're also giving freak doctors the opportunity to fake consent of innocent people and kill them.

Wow. What an establishment-type argument.

I'm not surprised this is coming from you though.
You're the same person who wanted to outlaw allowing people to keep dog's on a chain.

[WaltM]

IDK who Nancy Cruzan is, but I do know who Terri Schaivo is.

In the movie, Dr. Kevorkian asked a question similar to this: Why is appropriate and legal for one adult to make a decision to pull the plug on another adult, allowing them to die, but it's not considered appropriate for one adult to decide to "pull the plug" on themselves?

or, why is it OK for a person to kill himself, but not ask a person to help him do it?

[low preference guy]

Convicting innocent people of crimes is always wrong, death penalty or not.

killing people without their consent is always wrong, whether the killer claim consent or not.

[RileyE104]

i'm still against it because it's a slippery slope. the function of government for me it to protect life, not protect the destruction of life.


So I assume you're in favor of Prohibition of ALL forms?

I mean, if it's the Government's job to protect life and not the destruction of life, they should therefore be able to prevent us from "destroying" our lives by using drugs or eating fatty foods or smoking "cancer sticks".

[low preference guy]

You're the same person who wanted to outlaw allowing people to keep dog's on a chain.

source? i don't recall ever making that claim.

[ClayTrainor]

i'm just stating plainly what your statement truly means.


No you're stating that you wish to bring the government into my private decisions involving my private life.



i'll leave you alone, as long as you don't attack my life or someone else's, even when you claim you're attacking someone with their consent.

And what if it is their claim, not mine?

[low preference guy]

So I assume you're in favor of Prohibition of ALL forms?

I mean, if it's the Government's job to protect life and not the destruction of life, they should therefore be able to prevent us from "destroying" our lives by using drugs or eating fatty foods.

no. i favor protecting people from external aggression, not from aggression an individual commits against himself.

[WaltM]

Before Kevorkian gave the shot himself, he allowed the patients to basically kill themselves. All he did was provide a way for them to do it in a peaceful manner.

Although I think that way is better, I still don't see anything wrong with Kevorkian giving the shot himself. He had permission from the person and their families. How is that any different from a family deciding to pull the plug on a dying family member? I mean, at least Kevorkian's way, he has the actual patient's permission.

you are right, I think he really only got in trouble by being a smartass on tape.

[low preference guy]

No you're stating that you wish to bring the government into my private decisions involving my private life.


if you make any decision regarding your life and no one else's, and your actions don't affect anyone else, i'm all in favor of leaving you alone.

[ClayTrainor]

killing people without their consent is always wrong, whether the killer claim consent or not.

I'm not arguing that the killer gets to define the "consent", that would be absurd.

[ClayTrainor]

if you make any decision regarding your life and no one else's, and your actions don't affect anyone else, i'm all in favor of leaving you alone.

So if I become terminally ill with cancer, and consent to have Dr. Kevorkian end my misery with his method, and he agrees... you're okay with that?

[Expatriate]

because by doing so, you're also giving freak doctors the opportunity to fake consent of innocent people and kill them.

It's usually pretty damn easy to do an investigation and find out if the person actually wanted to die. Besides, in this day and age, contracts for something as important as this could start to require more than just an (easily faked) signature. How about a pre-procedure video of the patient professing their desire to leave this mortal coil?

[low preference guy]

I'm not arguing that the killer gets to define the "consent", that would be absurd.

let the government define consent. very smart!

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Im not crazy about it. But at the same time im sure if I was paralyzed from the neck down I would want someone to put my out of my misery. Like dude said, its their own body.

[low preference guy]

How about a pre-procedure video of the patient
professing their desire to leave this mortal coil?

you couldn't rule out that the doctor is very good at manipulating people psychologically and brainwashed him for months to have him provide consent.

[ClayTrainor]

let the government define consent. very smart!

Killers and government... those are my only 2 options? :rolleyes:

[WaltM]

let the government define consent. very smart!

you're the one who says we shouldnt allow it because it'll give freaks the definition power, but government definition doesnt work for you either???

[low preference guy]

Killers and government... those are my only 2 options? :rolleyes:

i'm not an anarchist, so i suppose yes, if that's the point you're making.

[ClayTrainor]

i'm not an anarchist, so i suppose yes, if that's the point you're making.

It's not. Being an anarchist or a minarchist is completely besides the point.

I hope you realize that there are competent people capable of making rational decisions, who aren't killers or employed by the government.

[low preference guy]

I hope you realize that there are competent people capable of making rational decisions, who aren't killers or employed by the government.

i hope you realize that allowing assisted suicide will allow freak doctors who are good at manipulating people psychologically to brainwash victims for months into giving their "consent" and kill them for the thrill of it.

it's bad for someone who can't kill himself to stay alive against his wishes, but the alternative, from my point of view, is worse.

[WaltM]

you couldn't rule out that the doctor is very good at manipulating people psychologically and brainwashed him for months to have him provide consent.

thats what makes it wrong?

[WaltM]

i hope you realize that allowing assisted suicide will allow freak doctors who are good at manipulating people psychologically to brainwash victims for months into giving their "consent" and kill them for the thrill of it.

it's bad for someone who can't kill himself to stay alive against his wishes, but the alternative, from my point of view, is worse.

i can respect that.

though, I can't say I'm against manipulation and fraud without being against freedom to choose.

[RileyE104]

i'm against legalizing assisted suicide

How is allowing another person to pull the plug on a patient NOT assisted suicide?

Are you in favor of making THAT illegal? If a person writes in their will that they want to be taken off life support if they ever become a vegetable, are you in support of allowing that to happen? If you are, then you are FOR assisted suicide. Life support is keeping that person alive, and if a doctor removes it, he has just assisted a patient in committing suicide.

What about DNR cases? Are you fine with people being ALLOWED to die? That is pretty much assisted suicide, just a different variable than getting a needle in the arm.


My point is, some cases of assisted suicide are ALREADY legal.

[WaltM]

How is allowing another person to pull the plug on a patient NOT assisted suicide?

Are you in favor of making THAT illegal? If a person writes in their will that they want to be taken off life support if they ever become a vegetable, are you in support of allowing that to happen? If you are, then you are FOR assisted suicide. Life support is keeping that person alive, and if a doctor removes it, he has just assisted a patient in committing suicide.

What about DNR cases? Are you fine with people being ALLOWED to die? That is pretty much assisted suicide, just a different variable than getting a needle in the arm.


My point is, some cases of assisted suicide are ALREADY legal.

I love when people pull that active vs passive bullshit

[ClayTrainor]

i hope you realize that allowing assisted suicide will allow freak doctors who are good at manipulating people psychologically to brainwash victims for months into giving their "consent" and kill them for the thrill of it.

Regardless, it's not the doctors decision to make, it's the patients. Doctors can only offer their words as advice. The patients are always free to seek other opinions, and consult other doctors. They and their loved ones are also free to let the public know about any shady doctors, or suspicious activities. Free-markets tend to reduce these kinds of risks, black-markets tend to exploit them.



it's bad for someone who can't kill himself to stay alive against his wishes, but the alternative, from my point of view, is worse.

The alternative for that individual is a peaceful death, if he so chooses. I fail to see the need for your or anyone who doesn't even know the individual to have any say in the decision.

[WaltM]

Regardless, it's not the doctors decision to make, it's the patients. Doctors can only offer their words as advice. The patients are always free to seek other opinions, and consult other doctors. They and their loved ones are also free to let the public know about any shady doctors, or suspicious activities. Free-markets tend to reduce these kinds of risks, black-markets tend to exploit them.



The alternative for that individual is a peaceful death, if he so chooses. I fail to see the need for your or anyone who doesn't even know the individual to have any say in the decision.

I'll go one step ahead and say a person who can't even express his unwillingness to die, (let alone fight it physically) is not worth keeping alive (and has no real right or purpose to live)

[low preference guy]

The alternative for that individual is a peaceful death, if he so chooses.

the alternative is also innocent people to die without choosing so.

[WaltM]

the alternative is also innocent people to die without choosing so.

wait, do doctors get paid to kill people?

wouldn't doctors want to keep them alive as long as possible so they can bill them? (unless of course they got nothing to give)

[ClayTrainor]

the alternative is also innocent people to die without choosing so.

That's murder. Like I said, the decision is the patients to make, not the doctors.

[ClayTrainor]

I'll go one step ahead and say a person who can't even express his unwillingness to die, (let alone fight it physically) is not worth keeping alive (and has no real right or purpose to live)

I can't argue with that, really. It does approach that dangerous "line" though, since there is no way to achieve consent. If it was someone I know, I would like the decision to be made by those who are closest to him and/or finance his care, i guess.

[2young2vote]

I think it is okay as long as there is some legal paper work with the authorization of some kind family member or good friend. This idea has far too many negative possibilities when the government takes over the health care system. I seriously doubt this is going to affect too many depressed people. Chances are, if they are suicidal then they can do it themselves. I believe a majority of the people interested in his beliefs would those who are having physical problems and may die soon anyways, but want to go out peacefully rather than painfully.

[tremendoustie]

I oppose what Kevorkian is doing. But, I don't think it should be illegal. His "patients" have a right to make that choice, even if it's a poor one. Certainly their actions do not constitute an attack on others or their property, so I'd have no right to respond forcefully.

[ClayTrainor]

I oppose what Kevorkian is doing. But, I don't think it should be illegal. His "patients" have a right to make that choice, even if it's a poor one. Certainly their actions do not constitute an attack on others or their property, so I'd have no right to respond forcefully.

Interesting perspective, i respect it, but I don't fully understand it. Why are you against what he is doing?

If someone you loved deeply was terminally ill, and suffering very badly every single day... would you advise them to suffer more, if they preferred assisted suicide?

[libertybrewcity]

someone in my ethics class did a report on this and it turns out since it became legal only a few hundred people have used this method. It is not a small process. You can't just go in and die. It is like the drug war. People think that if we legalize all drugs everyone will use them and society will go to hell. If we legalize physician suicide not many people are going to use it.

There are lots of ethical questions that must be asked. Some parents have been known to use it so their children aren't burdened by hundreds of thousands in debt. It makes sense a lot of the time.

[tremendoustie]

Interesting perspective, i respect it, but I don't fully understand it. Why are you against what he is doing?

If someone you loved deeply was terminally ill, and suffering very badly every single day... would you advise them to suffer more, if they preferred assisted suicide?

I suppose in extreme circumstances I could understand it. I think the vast majority of suicides are very poor and damaging choices, however, and relatively few are by those in extreme pain and only a very short time from inevitable death.

[WaltM]

I oppose what Kevorkian is doing. But, I don't think it should be illegal. His "patients" have a right to make that choice, even if it's a poor one. Certainly their actions do not constitute an attack on others or their property, so I'd have no right to respond forcefully.

just on a personal, ideal, moral level, why do you oppose what he's doing?

I'm not asking you a trick question, I dont understand what can possibly be wrong with carrying out the wishes of another person when you are the person who can make it happen.

[tremendoustie]

just on a personal, ideal, moral level, why do you oppose what he's doing?

I'm not asking you a trick question, I dont understand what can possibly be wrong with carrying out the wishes of another person when you are the person who can make it happen.

I'd only help a person carry out their wishes if I believed those wishes to be healthy and positive. For example, if a glutton wants me to pick up ten big macs for them, or an alcoholic wants me to buy them a bottle of vodka, I'm not going to do it.

I can understand assisted suicide in extreme cases, with great pain and unavoidable death. In most situations, however, committing suicide is a very poor and damaging choice for all involved. I wouldn't help a person do such a thing in those circumstances.

[WaltM]

I'd only help a person carry out their wishes if I believed those wishes to be healthy and positive. For example, if a glutton wants me to pick up ten big macs for them, or an alcoholic wants me to buy them a bottle of vodka, I'm not going to do it.

I can understand assisted suicide in extreme cases, with great pain and unavoidable death. In most situations, however, committing suicide is a very poor and damaging choice for all involved. I wouldn't help a person do such a thing in those circumstances.

obviously, extreme circumstances will not have POSITIVE OR HEALTHY results, only less than worse results. You seem to think that Krevorkian's cases are not extreme enough, how is committing suicide damaging if it's the only choice that minimizes suffering?

[klamath]

I don't have a problem providing a terminally ill patient the tools to a painless way out, kind of like the law in Washington state.
I am strongly against any outside person pulling the trigger. You have to do the actual act yourself.
This shit about two people making their own agreement is wrong. Only one person can make that decision and that is the person killing themselves.
Many teenagers go through a difficult time when their bodies are flushed with hormones and finding their place as adults. Many want to commit suicide. Just let the second person try and give me the excuse that my son or daughter asked to have the chair kicked out from under him or her and I will exercise my right to terminate that second person.
Let the boundry of social acceptance for killing another human for their own good get started and very soon the government laws will follow with the government being that second person making the decision that you are to ignorant, stupid to know it but you really want to die and the rest of the human race will benefit from your demise.

[Golding]

I think Kevorkian has a reasonable foundation for his practices. But I also think that his insistence that the issue be thrust upon the public did more harm to his cause than good. He essentially forced the public to see a dying man euthenized. Before then, there was reasonable backing for the sympathetic cause of letting legitimately suffering people were sure they wanted to go to be able to go. It's a similar idea to hospice care, but more direct.

The problem with some of the suggestions (like in the reply directly above mine) that the patients should have pulled the trigger themselves is that many of these patients literally could not do so. When you have a patient with late-stages of ALS, they are in severe pain and cannot really move well enough to perform any kind of suicidal act.

Either way, it's not something I'd ever intend to do in the future. Just as I'd never perform elective abortions in the future, I'd personally not be in the practice to end life. Even if there may be noble arguments that could be made for it.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

As several others have stated, I think the right to end your own life is sacrosanct. However, I too am leery of 'doctor assisted suicide' simply because consent can be faked and it would be way too easy for scummy fucks in government to see to it that you 'consented' to an overdose of some lethal cocktail. You wanna take your own life, be my guest. 'Doctor Assisted' is way too close to Euthanasia for my comfort.

[klamath]

I think Kevorkian has a reasonable foundation for his practices. But I also think that his insistence that the issue be thrust upon the public did more harm to his cause than good. He essentially forced the public to see a dying man euthenized. Before then, there was reasonable backing for the sympathetic cause of letting legitimately suffering people were sure they wanted to go to be able to go. It's a similar idea to hospice care, but more direct.

The problem with some of the suggestions (like in the reply directly above mine) that the patients should have pulled the trigger themselves is that many of these patients literally could not do so. When you have a patient with late-stages of ALS, they are in severe pain and cannot really move well enough to perform any kind of suicidal act.

Either way, it's not something I'd ever intend to do in the future. Just as I'd never perform elective abortions in the future, I'd personally not be in the practice to end life. Even if there may be noble arguments that could be made for it.

So tell me just how many of Kevorkian's patients absolutely could not kill themselves?

[Icymudpuppy]

By Jacob Goldstein
Voters in Washington State gave a clear answer yesterday to a thorny ethical question: Should a doctor should be allowed to prescribe a lethal dose of drugs to a dying patient?

A state measure known as Initiative 1000 passed by a margin of 59% to 41%, making it legal for doctors to prescribe a lethal dose of medication for patients with less than six months to live.

As we reported last week, the law is packed with provisions intended to limit the practice. Patients must make two separate requests, orally and in writing, more than two weeks apart; must be of sound mind and not suffering from depression; and must have their request approved by two separate doctors. Doctors are not allowed to administer the lethal dose.

Backers of the bill, including national right-to-die organizations and a former Democratic governor who has Parkinson’s, raised $4.9 million to support it. Opponents, including several Catholic organizations, raised $1.6 million to fund their fight, the Seattle Times reports.

In Oregon, the only other state with a similar law, some 341 patients have committed physician-assisted suicide in the 11 years the law has been in effect, the New York Times reported last week.

I voted yes. There are plenty of safeguards against abuse.

[klamath]

I voted yes. There are plenty of safeguards against abuse.
I don't have a problem with this law. I feel for those that physically can't kill themselves but I believe that the consequences of crossing that line of having another human killing another is far more dangerous.

[Meatwasp]

If someone commits suicide their soul will go some where else, so the Veda's say. You should bear the pain and let nature take it's course. When my husband died at home he never would take drugs as he said we must be alert to the end. He was and I was so proud of him.
Someone else should never have the responsibility for your death.

[tremendoustie]

obviously, extreme circumstances will not have POSITIVE OR HEALTHY results, only less than worse results. You seem to think that Krevorkian's cases are not extreme enough, how is committing suicide damaging if it's the only choice that minimizes suffering?

Perhaps I should not spend too much time criticizing Kevorkian specifically, since I'm not closely familiar with exactly what cases he accepts and which he does not.

[MsDoodahs]

I fully support the right of the individual to take their own life.

[RileyE104]

Perhaps I should not spend too much time criticizing Kevorkian specifically, since I'm not closely familiar with exactly what cases he accepts and which he does not.

According to Kevorkian, he turned down about 97% of the people who contacted him.

Also, the only reason he did his last patient the way he did (with a lethal injection) was to get the case heard by the Supreme Court. He wanted a national debate on the subject. But the USSC never heard the case.

All of his other patients did themselves in with that little contraption thing that Dr. K made (I forgot what it was called). So he basically just provided them with a way to peacefully and cleanly end their suffering. I see nothing wrong with that. He didn't coax anyone into leaving this world and he didn't even charge for his "services".

I believe the main principle in this issue is declaring what the role of Government is.
Ron says that if we give the Government the power to make medical decisions for us then we surrender to the State control of our bodies. I agree with that.

[Golding]

So tell me just how many of Kevorkian's patients absolutely could not kill themselves?You can just as easily search for your answer without having to rely on me to feed you the information, but of the euthenasias where he actually injected the patient instead of provide them with the means to end their own lives (by your post, the situation you take issue with), the answer is 100% of them. One out of one.

[MelissaWV]

According to Kevorkian, he turned down about 97% of the people who contacted him.

Also, the only reason he did his last patient the way he did (with a lethal injection) was to get the case heard by the Supreme Court. He wanted a national debate on the subject. But the USSC never heard the case.

All of his other patients did themselves in with that little contraption thing that Dr. K made (I forgot what it was called). So he basically just provided them with a way to peacefully and cleanly end their suffering. I see nothing wrong with that. He didn't coax anyone into leaving this world and he didn't even charge for his "services".

I believe the main principle in this issue is declaring what the role of Government is.
Ron says that if we give the Government the power to make medical decisions for us then we surrender to the State control of our bodies. I agree with that.

I have a teensy bit of a problem with the bolded part, but not on a legislation-needed level. It just seems tacky.

Suicide shouldn't be taken likely, and that is accomplished via societal pressures and family teachings (and religious influence, though some won't like to hear that part). It also shouldn't be prohibited.

[RileyE104]

I have a teensy bit of a problem with the bolded part, but not on a legislation-needed level. It just seems tacky.

Well, you share the same concern that his friends did (in the movie at least) since they were begging him not to do it.

[Brian4Liberty]

because by doing so, you're also giving freak doctors the opportunity to fake consent of innocent people and kill them.

Doctors kill people every day. Most people will die at the hands of a Doctor, one way or another. If a Doctor is a psycho that has a motive to murder someone, they have more than enough opportunity and means to take out a patient.

[RileyE104]

I didn't know he ran for Congress in 2008...

YouTube - Jack Kevorkian Campaigns in Birmingham (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDXUKuy3ag8)

YouTube - Dr. Death Runs for Congress:pick his campaign slogan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hshrlH9aUA)

He reminds me of a combination of Ron and Schiff... :D
Plus the media tried to bash him in the same way...

[klamath]

I didn't know he ran for Congress in 2008...

YouTube - Jack Kevorkian Campaigns in Birmingham (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDXUKuy3ag8)

YouTube - Dr. Death Runs for Congress:pick his campaign slogan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hshrlH9aUA)

He reminds me of a combination of Ron and Schiff... :D
Plus the media tried to bash him in the same way...
RP worships life, Kevorkian worshiped death. Take a look at the pictures the guy painted plus the 138 people he killed or helped kill and the picture of a twisted person emerges. Please don't try and tie the two together. You do no service to RP.

[MsDoodahs]

RP worships life, Kevorkian worshiped death. Take a look at the pictures the guy painted plus the 138 people he killed or helped kill and the picture of a twisted person emerges. Please don't try and tie the two together. You do no service to RP.

So based on the pictures he painted you think he "worshipped death?"

:rolleyes:

[RileyE104]

RP worships life, Kevorkian worshiped death. Take a look at the pictures the guy painted plus the 138 people he killed or helped kill and the picture of a twisted person emerges. Please don't try and tie the two together. You do no service to RP.

Chill out, I didn't say they were identical.

It's just like how there are some Democrats out there that can sympathize with Ron.

Like Ron said, freedom is popular. It brings people together.

[Golding]

RP worships life, Kevorkian worshiped death. Take a look at the pictures the guy painted plus the 138 people he killed or helped kill and the picture of a twisted person emerges. Please don't try and tie the two together. You do no service to RP.Neither of your statements are true, of course. Both "worship" (if that's really the word you want to use) the individual and their rights. Paintings are a non-factor in the discussion.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I'd only help a person carry out their wishes if I believed those wishes to be healthy and positive. For example, if a glutton wants me to pick up ten big macs for them, or an alcoholic wants me to buy them a bottle of vodka, I'm not going to do it.

I can understand assisted suicide in extreme cases, with great pain and unavoidable death. In most situations, however, committing suicide is a very poor and damaging choice for all involved. I wouldn't help a person do such a thing in those circumstances.

But assisted suicide is NOT about a doctor someone killing a healthy young person. What this debate is about is helping someone who has lived a good life, but now is going to die a slow and painful death, die a more peaceful one. When their death is inevitable but assisted suicide eases/speeds up the process, I'm okay with that.

[Koz]

I don't think I would ever do it to myself, I'm too much of a fighter. But, I think people should be given the option to take thier own life if they are terminally ill and have no quality of life. I think Kevorkian is very logical and no way should have gone to prison.

[WaltM]

Doctors kill people every day. Most people will die at the hands of a Doctor, one way or another. If a Doctor is a psycho that has a motive to murder someone, they have more than enough opportunity and means to take out a patient.

please dont tell me you're reading the "ban doctors not guns" statistic

[klamath]

So based on the pictures he painted you think he "worshipped death?"

:rolleyes:

Breaking my own rule in responding to someone on my mental ignore list.
No based what he did in life and the pictures as I stated. The guy didn't do this for pure compassion for the patient. He had a fascination.

[AmericaFyeah92]

get better until you are able to buy a gun and pull the trigger.

if you can't, too bad. i wouldn't risk allowing a system which freaks doctors can use to murder people.

What world are you living in??? Has there been a wave of mad doctor murders lately?

[Brian4Liberty]

please dont tell me you're reading the "ban doctors not guns" statistic

I am not reading (or familiar with) that. Is that a joke kind of statistic?

My point is that Doctors already have every opportunity to do someone in (if that's what they want to do).

[WaltM]

I am not reading (or familiar with) that. Is that a joke kind of statistic?

My point is that Doctors already have every opportunity to do someone in (if that's what they want to do).

yeah it is, google it sometime :)

[Meatwasp]

When I hear the name Kevorkian I think ,"A fugitive from the grave yard"

[Brian4Liberty]

yeah it is, google it sometime :)

Lol! Now I am scared!

[Xenophage]

get better until you are able to buy a gun and pull the trigger.

if you can't, too bad. i wouldn't risk allowing a system which freaks doctors can use to murder people.

You don't think a doctor can murder someone and hide it? HA! Since when?

Your fears are unfounded. The point is that a doctor can administer lethal doses of drugs to induce a coma before you die. Kevorkian's machine gave the patient complete control over the process. They push a button when they want to die. Everything was video taped.

[noxagol]

If an individual wishes to end his or her life, for any and whatever reason, they have the right to do so, as it is there life. They also have the right to ask someone to do it for them, and that person has the right to carry out the act or refuse to do so, for any and whatever reason.

Simply because YOU have a problem with it does not make it wrong. Welcome to true liberty, where a person owns their life and can end it whenever, and however, they wish, so long as they don't impact another person's property.

[Meatwasp]

Kevorkian's machine gave the patient complete control over the process. They push a button when they want to die. Everything was video taped.
Why would he even build a machine like that unless he wanted to see someone die. He is sick sick sick

[Xenophage]

RP worships life, Kevorkian worshiped death. Take a look at the pictures the guy painted plus the 138 people he killed or helped kill and the picture of a twisted person emerges. Please don't try and tie the two together. You do no service to RP.

Kevorkian worshiped DEATH!?

DEATH, you say?

By what means of logical deduction and/or mind-reading did you come to THAT conclusion?

[Meatwasp]

I read a long time ago that this man was studying death.
Now what do you suppose he is going to learn? Nothing at all..

[Xenophage]

Why would he even build a machine like that unless he wanted to see someone die. He is sick sick sick

To allow people to end their own lives painlessly and honorably!!

Kevorkian cared about the people who lived in perpetual suffering. All of you detractors don't give two SHITS about the suffering of those people, and you have the unmitigated gall to call him names like "Dr. Death."

It's absolutely shameful.

Do you not believe that suicide is the first basic right of any living creature? To choose whether or not you want to live or die? Do you not believe that a person owns his own life? Do you think suicide is an *easy* thing to choose?

[ClayTrainor]

Why would he even build a machine like that unless he wanted to see someone die. He is sick sick sick

Maybe, just maybe... as a practicing pathologist and death counselor, he had seen so many people suffer with disease, that he felt they deserved another option and produced one for them?

[ClayTrainor]

I read a long time ago that this man was studying death.
Now what do you suppose he is going to learn? Nothing at all..

He was a death counselor for many years. People came to him, to help deal with death. I think he must have learned something of value. I've met with a death counselor when my grandpa was expected to die.

[Meatwasp]

Sorry Kiddo,
You are wrong that it is alright to kill yourself. I would not make it against the law but I would wonder even with pain if you were such a coward you had to do away with yourself.
My husband was in terrible pain but when he decided to go he had a smile on his face and after wards my son and I saw a beautiful sparkly blue light above his head..
Everyone I know who has lost a loved tells me the day before they decide to die they get out of bed and act like they are getting well. The next day they leave.
With this machine, you worship they would not do this as they did it the wrong time befor the lit the fuse to their soul.

[Meatwasp]

Maybe, just maybe... as a practicing pathologist and death counselor, he had seen so many people suffer with disease, that he felt they deserved another option and produced one for them?

Why would people need a death consular for Gods sake. Death is for the one who is dying and no one else. People are so used to running to some counsilar for this and that they lose the ability to to solve the problem themselves.

[ClayTrainor]

Sorry Kiddo,
You are wrong that it is alright to kill yourself. I would not make it against the law but I would wonder even with pain if you were such a coward you had to do away with yourself.

That's a nice opinion you got there. I don't agree. I think what Dr. Kevorkian did takes alot courage . He went to jail for helping people end their suffering.


My husband was in terrible pain but when he decided to go he had a smile on his face and after wards my son and I saw a beautiful sparkly blue light above his head..

I'm truly sorry about your husband, but I don't see the relevance of a sparkly blue light?



Everyone I know who has lost a loved tells me the day before they decide to die they get out of bed and act like they are getting well. The next day they leave.

I can tell you that is not the case with some of the people I've known. My grandpa would be the perfect example. He had lung cancer and had so much trouble breathing. He was kept artificially alive as the cancer continued to eat his lungs, and made it hard for him to breathe. I remember him telling me that he hasn't been able to relax and enjoy a deep breath in over a year. He tried disconnecting his machines and killing himself more than once, but he never succeeded. He suffered like this for almost 2 years, and his last days were the worst ones. He was constantly coughing blood for like 5 days straight. I was with him for some of it, and it was disturbing. I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever, that he would've preferred to have the option to end the suffering had it been available, and so would've our entire family.

He got shot fighting underage in WW2, because his family was broke and needed money. He spent much of his later years helping charities, and his family with most of his time. I always thought of him as a hero, and I think he deserved another option. It's not cowardly at all, it's rational and humane. It's selfish to keep him alive because of your beliefs, when he's suffering and wants to die.



With this machine, you worship they would not do this as they did it the wrong time befor the lit the fuse to their soul.

I don't worship anything. I simply accept the individuals right to their own life and body.

[ClayTrainor]

Why would people need a death consular for Gods sake. Death is for the one who is dying and no one else. People are so used to running to some counsilar for this and that they lose the ability to to solve the problem themselves.

Death is a very difficult thing to deal with, and some people feel they need a little guidance. It's no different than people who pray, or go to church, or call a friend to talk, other than the fact that a death counselor is a professional who sees and tries to understand death every day.

[WaltM]

Why would he even build a machine like that unless he wanted to see someone die. He is sick sick sick

because people asked him to do it, and he videotaped it to show he had nothing to hide

[Meatwasp]

My husband died of lung cancer also. I awoke in the middle of the night and my hands were vibrating. Something told me to touch my husband and the pain eased for him, I felt someone was contacting me. I thought I wanted to be a healer at that point but then it went away.
The light we saw was his soul. There was no other explanation for it. Southern people in the old days used to let their old folks die at home and they too saw the soul light. It was electrical blue, just beautiful.

[MelissaWV]

get better until you are able to buy a gun and pull the trigger.

if you can't, too bad. i wouldn't risk allowing a system which freaks doctors can use to murder people.

Yes, make dying on your own terms contingent upon being able to afford a firearm and ammo, and on being successful via one of the messiest, least efficent, and traumatizing methods of suicide you can think of.

[MelissaWV]

My husband died of lung cancer also. I awoke in the middle of the night and my hands were vibrating. Something told me to touch my husband and the pain eased for him, I felt someone was contacting me. I thought I wanted to be a healer at that point but then it went away.
The light we saw was his soul. There was no other explanation for it. Southern people in the old days used to let their old folks die at home and they too saw the soul light. It was electrical blue, just beautiful.

You are assuming, though, that no one sees this light when they die via assisted suicide. How is it impossible that this is also ordained, and it's a perfectly fine time to die?

[Meatwasp]

I don't assume anything. People in the old days did not use drugs or councilors. Remember what I said about the one day they seemed like they were getting well? This they would miss if they jumped in before their time. Can't you see that?

[Meatwasp]

But of course if they wished to lose that day it is up to them. This is just my thought and I enjoy putting some different view points to think about.

[MelissaWV]

I don't assume anything. People in the old days did not use drugs or councilors. Remember what I said about the one day they seemed like they were getting well? This they would miss if they jumped in before their time. Can't you see that?

I've known people who did kill themselves, or tried. Those who weren't just attempting as a cry for attention seemed wonderfully content and peaceful the day before, knowing their suffering was going to be over. I think it's wholly possible that knowing you are leaving this earth on your terms would bring about that same sense of well-being that exists for those who are leaving on someone else's.

[Meatwasp]

I read a book once called the Egyptian Book of the dead. It was quite interesting how they quoted the ancient Veda's theory that some how you didn't get to choice where you go if you committed suicide. I guess that effected me. Heh.

[Meatwasp]

I've known people who did kill themselves, or tried. Those who weren't just attempting as a cry for attention seemed wonderfully content and peaceful the day before, knowing their suffering was going to be over. I think it's wholly possible that knowing you are leaving this earth on your terms would bring about that same sense of well-being that exists for those who are leaving on someone else's.

Melissa, I can see your point. If they made peace with themselves to go.
A very dear friend i knew committed suicide because he had heart trouble and diabetes. He was always strong but then he got weak. It was always a terrible lose to us that he just flipped out. I still think I can see him on the trail
He should have waited.

[MsDoodahs]

Why would people need a death consular for Gods sake. Death is for the one who is dying and no one else. People are so used to running to some counsilar for this and that they lose the ability to to solve the problem themselves.

What an absolutely HORRIBLE thing to say.

[low preference guy]

What an absolutely HORRIBLE thing to say.

What's the horrible part? A death counselor is probably the most awful thing there can be... some guy telling you sometimes it is worth to live and sometimes tells you that should die. And those guys get paid for that????

[klamath]

Quotes from Kevorkian from the professional journal, Medicine and Law


"Now that the benumbed sense of objective appraisal manifested by the Nuremberg judges has begun to wear off, at last it is conceded that they were wrong in concluding that nothing of value resulted from the illegal experiments...The data are all the more valuable because similar human experiments can never again be done. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that a few of the medical criminals did the right thing (extraction of positive gain from inevitably total loss otherwise beyond their influence) but in the wrong way (without concern over con*sent or anesthesia) and in the wrong setting (created by the evil “laws” of a diabolical dictator).2



At the end of his article, Kevorkian offers a bioethical “Code of Conduct” for “any professional or lay individual in any way participating in experimentation on human beings facing undeniably imminent and inevitable death.” C.(l). Experiments may be of any kind or complexity....C.(2). While a prospective subject is fully conscious, an experimenter may start any procedure which on thorough analysis portends no significant distress for the subject....C.(3). Induction and irreversible maintenance of at least stage III general anesthesia is imperative before experimentation is begun on the following prospective subjects: (a) All brain-dead, comatose, mentally incompetent, or otherwise completely uncom*municative individuals. (b) All neonates, infants, and children less than (-) years old (age must be arbitrarily set by consensus). (c) All living intrauterine and aborted or delivered fetuses. C.(4). If the subject’s body is alive at the end of experimentation, final biologic death may be induced by means of: (a) Removal of organs for transplantation, (b) A lethal dose of a new or untested drug.... (c) A lethal intravenous bolus of thiopental solution...3
It seemed more compassionate and logical to have a certain number of wealthy persons dying of renal disease buy kidneys from a supply greatly expanded by their purchasing power and thus survive while a certain number of dying poor individuals succumb because of the inequity of affordability....Surprisingly, sales to the rich could indirectly save more lives of the poor: because quality often erroneously is equated with price, wealthy donees might prefer to buy very expensive, “high-quality” kidneys from donors in the upper strata of society and leave most or all of the freely donated or very low-priced, “low-quality” organs from “skid row” donors to the poor — there*by actually enhancing equity.6"

It appears all his patients weren't terminially.


In 1996 Kevorkian assisted in the suicide of Rebecca Badger, a 39 year old woman who believed she had MS. Her autopsy revealed that she did not have the disease. She was a recovering alcoholic, manic depressant and had an addiction to pain medication


Marjorie Wantz died with the help of Kevorkian in 1991. She was treated for psychiatric conditions on several occasions and had been taking Halcion, a drug known to impair judgment, the month before her death. Her autopsy revealed no illness or disease. Ms. Wantz claimed to be experiencing unmanageable pelvic pain, though her doctors maintain that the pain was manageable had Ms. Wantz followed their instructions. Kevorkian made no efforts to examine her pelvic area or obtain her medical records


In an interview with the ny magazine;
Kevorkian has some very specific ideas on how to solve our nation's problems:

What’s your opinion of the health-care reforms that President Obama just passed?
I haven’t been following it very closely, but it’s not going to solve the problem. Availability isn’t going to do much.

Why do you think that?
It doesn’t do much to lower costs, as far as I know. There’s a better way to do it, they just won’t do it that way. Everybody should pay for health care, and therefore you should tax everybody a little, and the fairest way is to tax profits. So that if a person has more money one year over the last year, then he pays ten percent of that excess. So that everybody pays equally. And all the corporations and everybody pays that way, and many corporations are going to pay billions, see. And that way, you cover everybody fairly.

Interesting concept.
See, no one’s ever brought that up. You have taxes on excess profits of corporations, but not on human beings.

So you think each individual should pay 10 percent.
If you have less income this year than you had last year, then you pay no extra tax, or equal, but you pay no extra. But if you have more — let’s say you made 20 percent more this year. If you had $100 more, you would pay 10 percent of that, so you would pay $10 tax extra. Nobody would miss that, because it’s out of your profits. 10 percent is nothing. But 10 percent out of a corporate profit tax, making, like, the oil industry and the pharmaceutical industry, you know, doctors’ income, there could be enormous profits, and that way everybody’s covered.

But many individuals don’t have “profits.” They just collect a salary, and if they make more it’s because they got a raise in salary.
They’re still going to enjoy the raise, but a tiny fraction of it goes to the common fund. Nobody can blame anybody for being more heavily taxed that way. And no one’s going to miss that little 10 percent of an excess profit.

You’re from Michigan. What do you think about the current state of the city of Detroit?
It’s a dying city, if it’s not already dead. The bankruptcy of the auto industry hurt it very badly, also. But then, that was due to inept leadership, lack of foresight. And yet, they make billions for lack of foresight. There’s no fairness in the system; the greed has putrefied what feelings of compassion and good we had for society. There are many problems with Detroit; one of them is charity for people who could work, but won’t. And that’s got to stop. And if there are no jobs available, then you can’t blame them. But you’ve entered the era now, unfortunately, of almost insoluble problems, because the population is expanding at a rate where it’s difficult to keep them employed.
Jobs won’t absorb all the people.
No. And you can’t create jobs fast enough, and if you do, it's artificial, like the census. That wasn’t anything to brag about as an increase of employment; that was charity. And we’ve entered the period now — you see this last crisis we went through that scared everybody, there was a solution, but nobody would like it. I could solve it in a minute by cutting the population in half, and now you’d have a job for everybody.[/I]

But how could you cut the population in half?
[I]That’s the point; you can’t solve it easily. But it tells you don’t increase your population so fast, because all you’re going to do is compound the problem. You’re cutting out jobs and at the same time adding people for more jobs. These are hard problems to solve, but the solutions are not as easy as they’re trying to make it sound. They’re painful, and people don’t like that.

That’s a constant problem for politicians.
Politicians by definition are lying people. How can you trust a lying person? I know I’m generalizing with broad strokes, but everyone knows something’s wrong with our society. Then you’re frustrated because they can’t put their finger on it, and that leads to anger. People are outright angry. They’re not sad or depressed; they’re angry. Given enough time, the future of humanity on this earth is not very rosy. You’re first going to destroy nature, you’re going to then destroy species, and then you’re going to destroy yourself. We have to protect nature whether we want to or not, because nature will always survive, even if it’s tattered, but a human species tattered will not survive without nature. See? And politicians just overlook that.

This guy represents the worst evil in the world. Kevorkian is no compassionate man but a man that is trying to change social norms so half of the population can be diabolically euthanized to fit his idea of utopia. That is my opinion of Kevorkian

[RileyE104]

This guy represents the worst evil in the world. Kevorkian is no compassionate man but a man that is trying to change social norms so half of the population can be diabolically euthanized to fit his idea of utopia. That is my opinion of Kevorkian

Your fear is laughable to me.
What do some people here find so "diabolical" about Kevorkian?

Kevorkian didn't go out and seek to cause harm to society though any kind of "population control" method like as if he thought he was the new Hitler.

People CAME TO HIM. He didn't coerce anyone into offing themselves. They wanted to die in a peaceful and painless manner - he gave them a way to do so. Kind of like those places drug addicts can go to and safely use their drugs.

Are you seriously suggesting that he wants to cut the country's population in half?
Do you also believe that the "NWO" is going to take those dead bodies that will be assisted to suicide by Kevorkian and haul them to FEMA camps so they can be disposed of into plastic caskets?

[klamath]

Your fear is laughable to me.
What do some people here find so "diabolical" about Kevorkian?

Kevorkian didn't go out and seek to cause harm to society though any kind of "population control" method like as if he thought he was the new Hitler.

People CAME TO HIM. He didn't coerce anyone into offing themselves. They wanted to die in a peaceful and painless manner - he gave them a way to do so. Kind of like those places drug addicts can go to and safely use their drugs.

Are you seriously suggesting that he wants to cut the country's population in half?
Do you also believe that the "NWO" is going to take those dead bodies that will be assisted to suicide by Kevorkian and haul them to FEMA camps so they can be disposed of into plastic caskets?

Those were his words not mine. His agenda which he would have tried to enact if he had been elected to congress would have been socialism and forced governemnt control of population.
So you ask in a thread what RPFers felt about Kovorkian. Well you found out and I sorry but not all of us believe he is wonderful compassionate man. It is quite obvious he looked for subjects to study their death. He didn't get the name DR death from his PAS but from his early work trying to photograph patients eyes at the exact moment of death.

[ClayTrainor]

Those were his words not mine. His agenda which he would have tried to enact if he had been elected to congress would have been socialism and forced governemnt control of population.
So you ask in a thread what RPFers felt about Kovorkian. Well you found out and I sorry but not all of us believe he is wonderful compassionate man. It is quite obvious he looked for subjects to study their death. He didn't get the name DR death from his PAS but from his early work trying to photograph patients eyes at the exact moment of death.

Okay, you've made it clear that you don't like Dr. Kevorkian, or his personal beliefs. Forget about the man for a second. How do you feel about the idea of assisted suicide, and helping people end their suffering?

There have been other doctors in other countries that have done this for people as well. Are they all sick?

YouTube - Craig Ewert - Assisted Suicide in Switzerland (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWy6pKVendQ)

[low preference guy]

all these people wanting to allow assisted suicide ... don't worry you all, in the end you are all going to die, so please don't try to introduce laws which will make it easier for freaks like Kerkovian to make innocent people die through lies and manipulation.

[ClayTrainor]

all these people wanting to allow assisted suicide ... don't worry you all, in the end you are all going to die,

That's completely besides the point, yet again. This is about the suffering that can sometimes occur before death, and whether it is my choice to end my own life, or yours.



so please don't try to introduce laws which will make it easier for freaks like Kerkovian to make innocent people die through lies and manipulation.

Introduce laws? You either accept that individuals own themselves, or you don't. Clearly you don't.

Please don't maintain laws that force people like my Grandpa to needlessly suffer, when there are perfectly reasonable and entirely voluntary alternatives.

[ClayTrainor]

What's the horrible part? A death counselor is probably the most awful thing there can be... some guy telling you sometimes it is worth to live and sometimes tells you that should die. And those guys get paid for that????

No offence, but I don't think you know what a death counsellor is or what they get paid to do.

They don't decide anything or give their opinion on whether you should live or die, they are there for support and guidance. They are also there to consult and give advice to the family on the grieving process, and what to expect when the time comes.

[South Park Fan]

all these people wanting to allow assisted suicide ... don't worry you all, in the end you are all going to die, so please don't try to introduce laws which will make it easier for freaks like Kerkovian to make innocent people die through lies and manipulation.

So because legalized assisted suicide might be subject to abuse (which is the whole point of having a justice system), a man who helped people end their lives with their consent should be put in prison?

[low preference guy]

So because legalized assisted suicide might be subject to abuse (which is the whole point of having a justice system), a man who helped people end their lives with their consent should be put in prison?

correct.

[South Park Fan]

correct.

http://www.residualforces.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/facepalm.jpg

[low preference guy]

LOL. Caring about protecting the lives of innocent people is now a reason for face-palming.

There's a tradeoff between having innocent people die and not allowing assisted suicide. I chose the latter.

[South Park Fan]

LOL. Caring about protecting the lives of innocent people is now a reason for face-palming.

There's a tradeoff between having innocent people die and not allowing assisted suicide. I chose the latter.

Those innocent people want to die. What right do you have to determine that you know how to run their lives better than they do? You used a non sequitor of potential abuses using assisted suicide as an excuse as an argument against assisted suicide itself. By that logic, should trick-or-treating be illegal, since someone might put razors in the candy?

[low preference guy]

Does allowing assisted suicide override the long established principle that one is innocent until proven guilty?

Suppose Dr. X kills Joe. If people are innocent until proven guilty, nothing should be done to Dr. X unless someone can prove that Joe did not provide consent. So what would you want to do? Requiring prosecutors to prove that Joe didn't provide consent, or throwing the long established principle that people are innocent until proven guilty out of the window?

[tremendoustie]

Does allowing assisted suicide override the long established principle that one is innocent until proven guilty?

Suppose Dr. X kills Joe. If people are innocent until proven guilty, nothing should be done to Dr. X unless someone can prove that Joe did not provide consent. So what would you want to do? Requiring prosecutors to prove that Joe didn't provide consent, or throwing the long established principle that people are innocent until proven guilty out of the window?

A clear written, or recorded agreement/contract would be necessary. This is the same as any arrangement to act in a way which would normally be a violation of person or property. If I take a dead guy's car, for example, and then later claim he said I could have it, it's not going to fly unless I have a written agreement or will of some sort, or at least witnesses.

[low preference guy]

Those innocent people want to die.

There are cases where consent can be faked. Suppose someone persuades another person to perform a script. In that script person A wants to die so A says he wants to die and B kills him. B could have video taped all this, and you will have an innocent person dead, legally.

[low preference guy]

Jack Kevorkian originally wanted to be a baseball radio broadcaster, but his Armenian immigrant parents felt that he should have a more promising career.

It's his parents fault. Dr. Death wanted revenged against the world for pressuring him to not be a baseball radio broadcaster. Life lost all meaning for him, and he found it satisfying to help end other people's lives.

[tremendoustie]

There are cases where consent can be faked. Suppose someone persuades another person to perform a script. In that script person A wants to die so A says he wants to die and B kills him. B could have video taped all this, and you will have an innocent person dead, legally.

You're really reaching here. If this were true, what you describe could be a means to fake any contract. Furthermore, to be valid, witnesses are going to be needed.

Certainly a contract of this nature is going to have to meet the highest standards, and the will of the individual is going to need to be absolutely indisputable.

[low preference guy]

You're really reaching here. If this were true, what you describe could be a means to fake any contract.

But such contracts don't involve life and death. There is no standard good enough for consenting to death, because there is no perfect standard, and there will always be the possibility of people being abused to death by creeps like Jack Kevorkian.

[tremendoustie]

But such contracts don't involve life and death. There is no standard good enough for consenting to death, because there is no perfect standard, and there will always be the possibility of people being abused to death by creeps like Jack Kevorkian.

Um, yes, it's not that difficult to make your wishes clear to everyone you know in no uncertain terms, and to document that decision.

And again, while I don't necessarily approve of Kevorkian's work, you're now lumping him in with your imaginary group of killers who "abuse" people to death, when there's no reason to believe that's anything close to the truth.

[RileyE104]

It's his parents fault. Dr. Death wanted revenged against the world for pressuring him to not be a baseball radio broadcaster. Life lost all meaning for him, and he found it satisfying to help end other people's lives.

Or it could have something to do with how his sister and he had to watch their mother die a painful and agonizing death. You are forgetting that Kevorkian had her assistance as well as his friend's and his lawyer -

Kevorkian went to trial 4 times for assisted suicide and was ACQUITTED every time. Sorry, but if the People felt the same way you did, he would have been convicted after the 1st trial. Fortunately there are enough normal citizens who are just Libertarian enough to not jail a man for something we should all KNOW is a basic human right: The right to die, because if you have a right to live, you have a right to die. There is no death without life, and there is no life without death.


It was only until the 5th case that he went to jail and that was because he gave an actual lethal dose himself. The only reason he did that was because he wanted to sacrifice himself so he could try and get "the right case" to the Supreme Court, which never happened because they refused to hear it.

Although I do not agree with his last method, I don't think he should have been sent to jail. He did NOT seek out the man that was sick and wanted to die. The man and his family sought Kevorkian. The only reason Kevorkian was jailed for helping that man die was most likely because he was a smart ass and had the film play on 60 Minutes.

[noxagol]

Seems low preference guy's argument is basicaly 'since it COULD be abused, we shant allow it'. Sounds like the argument for a lot of things the government outlaws that shouldn't.

[low preference guy]

Seems low preference guy's argument is basicaly 'since it COULD be abused, we shant allow it'. Sounds like the argument for a lot of things the government outlaws that shouldn't.

Example?

[low preference guy]

Although I do not agree with his last method, I don't think he should have been sent to jail. He did NOT seek out the man that was sick and wanted to die. The man and his family sought Kevorkian. The only reason Kevorkian was jailed for helping that man die was most likely because he was a smart ass and had the film play on 60 Minutes.

I'm glad he went too jail. It's a shame he was freed before finishing his sentence.

[Meatwasp]

What an absolutely HORRIBLE thing to say.

Oh come on Millie You don't really mean that. Let me repeat myself "Total responsibility is total freedom" Cannot you be your own council when you are leaving? Must you have some regurgitated Pablum some guys feeds you a wonderful thing? I am not that religious but I would ask help from a guardian angel. (A higher soul that is with you when you go)

[MelissaWV]

Talking to someone else about your problems and fears is a sign of weakness now?

Killing yourself should be a right only for those who can do it themselves?

This forum really is surprising in the ways it saddens me sometimes.

Meatwasp, I know you mean well, but some people do like to talk about their problems and fears. I can think of no problem more daunting than a loved one about to die and you having no means to fix it, or really comfort them, or to stop it from happening. The fact that daddy won't be there to walk you down the aisle, or that your children might not know a grandparent, or that your spouse or parent is not only dying, but doesn't recognize you, is rather heart-wrenching. For some people, talking through it is the best way to get past that kind of obstacle in life, or they never will. Mortality is frightening for most people, even a lot of those who say they aren't scared of it.

low preference guy, I think that you mean well, but your arguments hold no water. You said earlier that someone who wants to die should wait until they get better to pull the trigger themselves. Most of the people considering this option would not be able to pull the trigger themselves, or would have problems killing themselves in that kind of way. Suicide is not foolproof and it is absolutely not nerve-proof. People try, and fail; they wince at the last moment and only shoot part of their face off, or don't take quite enough pills, or are found before they fully asphyxiate, or don't jump off a high enough building/bridge. The result of a failed attempt is even worse. Whatever freedoms were enjoyed will now be taken away, and you might wind up with even less mobility and communicative skills.

When you talk about doing it yourself, though, you are acknowledging that people do have the right to suicide. You've mentioned it earlier in the thread, too, so I will take it as gospel that this is so. What you are additionally saying is the possibility of abuse means that only those who are able to do it themselves without ANY help at all should be allowed to commit suicide. How cruel of you, seriously.

I can understand where you are coming from about abuse, but by your same logic suicide itself should be illegal because it can be so easily staged. You don't think that someone could be drugged, and their attacker slip up behind them (so as to make the patterns look right) and slit the drugged person's wrists? Any DNA and clothing fiber exchange will be explained by the second person saying they had to help drag the drugged person to a flat area to try CPR. It would be easy to say the deceased was depressed, was unhappy with their life, etc.; almost everyone is at some point. Almost everyone has had something recent where they've been less than enthused. As for the drugs, obviously the person wanted to dull the pain they expected with suicide. It would be easy enough to get their fingerprints on the bottle. It would be easy enough for the killer to avoid putting theirs on the bottle. Suicide being legal, it'd be a rather open and shut case.

The possibility of abuse gives us all kinds of laws. Rather than allow people to make decisions for themselves, we have to outlaw all "drugs" because there are those who will die the first time they shoot heroin. Prescription drugs must be dispensed by a doctor, because only they have the knowledge to make the link between one's diagnosed disease(s) and the drugs marketed to treat the relevant symptoms/disease(s). Speed limits are necessary because, if they weren't around, someone would go 100 mph in a school zone. Building codes must be enacted because, if not, builders would cut corners and use toxic materials unable to withstand local conditions. Sex with certain people is outlawed because, without much regard for the mental capacity of the person in question, the law determines they might not really be consenting (it might be coerced).

[Meatwasp]

[QUOTE=MelissaWV;2767629]Talking to someone else about your problems and fears is a sign of weakness now?

Killing yourself should be a right only for those who can do it themselves?

This forum really is surprising in the ways it saddens me sometimes.

Meatwasp, I know you mean well, but some people do like to talk about their problems and fears. I can think of no problem more daunting than a loved one about to die and you having no means to fix it, or really comfort them, or to stop it from happening. The fact that daddy won't be there to walk you down the aisle, or that your children might not know a grandparent, or that your spouse or parent is not only dying, but doesn't recognize you, is rather heart-wrenching. For some people, talking through it is the best way to get past that kind of obstacle in life, or they never will. Mortality is frightening for most people, even a lot of those who say they aren't scared of it.
I have no problem on talking to someone about your problems. But I do believe that most problems stem from a past bad experience. Usually you can find out why and how you got this way by looking back in time.
I won't go into details on how I do this as I would get chastised ,or worse think I am nuts
I find if you give a sick person sympathy they like it so much they get worse.
I am sorry if you think that is cruel . In the long run you are helping someone.

[MsDoodahs]

Oh come on Millie You don't really mean that.

Yes, I absolutely mean it: it was a HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE thing for you to have said.

[Meatwasp]

Yes, I absolutely mean it: it was a HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE thing for you to have said.

Think what you wish.

[MsDoodahs]

I find if you give a sick person sympathy they like it so much they get worse.


:eek:


:eek:


:eek:

[klamath]

Okay, you've made it clear that you don't like Dr. Kevorkian, or his personal beliefs. Forget about the man for a second. How do you feel about the idea of assisted suicide, and helping people end their suffering?

There have been other doctors in other countries that have done this for people as well. Are they all sick?

YouTube - Craig Ewert - Assisted Suicide in Switzerland (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWy6pKVendQ)
Maybe if you would look farther back in the thread you would see what I said.
In certain curcumstances where a medical board has certified a person is terminally ill with servere pain I think a presciption drug could be prescribed but NEVER administered. That action rests solely with the patient.

[Meatwasp]

In stead of sobbing and giving this person sympathy. Don't you feel it is more upbeat to help them by telling them ." Please put more attention on things that are worth living for"If they are terminal let them know that all nature will run a cycle and in the end they will be free of the worn out body.

[Meatwasp]

Also remember to tell them that the body may die but they will live on.

[RileyE104]

Also remember to tell them that the body may die but they will live on.

Not everyone may have the same religions views as you.

Btw, I thought the people on this forum wanted Government OUT of the Individual's life. And allow everyone the right to do as they please as long as they don't harm anyone else or anyone else's property.

YOU may think what Kevorkian did was wrong, but obviously the FAMILIES who he helped do not. Stop trying to "police" the world and mind your own business. Just like in the movie when the police barged in the room and yelled at a woman that was with her husband and Kevorkian and shouted that they were there to save her life. She shouted back at them "Who asked you!?"

[Natalie]

My grandpa died of lung cancer last year. For about three months at the end, he was bedridden, his legs had stopped working, he was pooping on himself, he could barely talk.... it was bad. If I'm ever like that, I hope my family will have sympathy for me and smother me with a pillow or something.

[Meatwasp]

Not everyone may have the same religions views as you.

Btw, I thought the people on this forum wanted Government OUT of the Individual's life. And allow everyone the right to do as they please as long as they don't harm anyone else or anyone else's property.

YOU may think what Kevorkian did was wrong, but obviously the FAMILIES who he helped do not. Stop trying to "police" the world and mind your own business. Just like in the movie when the police barged in the room and yelled at a woman that was with her husband and Kevorkian and shouted that they were there to save her life. She shouted back at them "Who asked you!?"
No where have I advocated government to stop suicide.
Yes I realized most people do not think like I do. I came on too strong at this time. Sorry.
I want to make it clear here and now I love most people ,even those I wouldn't care to associate with have good sides.

[mport1]

Kevorkian is a brave, heroic man. I completely support him in what he does.

[MsDoodahs]

Btw, I thought the people on this forum wanted Government OUT of the Individual's life. And allow everyone the right to do as they please as long as they don't harm anyone else or anyone else's property.

Not everyone here is an advocate of individual liberty.

[klamath]

Not everyone may have the same religions views as you.

Btw, I thought the people on this forum wanted Government OUT of the Individual's life. And allow everyone the right to do as they please as long as they don't harm anyone else or anyone else's property.

YOU may think what Kevorkian did was wrong, but obviously the FAMILIES who he helped do not. Stop trying to "police" the world and mind your own business. Just like in the movie when the police barged in the room and yelled at a woman that was with her husband and Kevorkian and shouted that they were there to save her life. She shouted back at them "Who asked you!?"
That is just it. DON'T CAUSE HARM TO SOMEBODY ELSE. When you kill somebody else you are causing harm. When you kill yourself you are harming nobody else anything beyond that is a slippery slope society will fall down if crossed. Someone else will determine when you die for your own good because you are not able as defined by the experts to do what is right for yourself. Neither the government nor a second person should be killing people for their OWN good.

[RyanRSheets]

my opinion is that if you want to die, kill yourself. i'm against legalizing assisted suicide because it could lead to people faking consent to murder someone.

Just require a video testimony or some other form of indisputable contract if you're that concerned.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Example?

The War on Drugs?

[QueenB4Liberty]

That is just it. DON'T CAUSE HARM TO SOMEBODY ELSE. When you kill somebody else you are causing harm. When you kill yourself you are harming nobody else anything beyond that is a slippery slope society will fall down if crossed. Someone else will determine when you die for your own good because you are not able as defined by the experts to do what is right for yourself. Neither the government nor a second person should be killing people for their OWN good.

Do you not understand that it isn't like that? The dying patient seeks out the doctor, NOT the other way around.

[Meatwasp]

My grandpa died of lung cancer last year. For about three months at the end, he was bedridden, his legs had stopped working, he was pooping on himself, he could barely talk.... it was bad. If I'm ever like that, I hope my family will have sympathy for me and smother me with a pillow or something.

Would you really?
Why didn't you ask him if he wanted to be smothered with a pillar.
Didn't anyone help him to go to the bathroom. My sons always helped their dad. He died so cleanly with no moaning about his pains. I only hope I can go that way too. He did not take any drugs and maybe that is why. I think drugs make it worse.

[klamath]

Do you not understand that it isn't like that? The dying patient seeks out the doctor, NOT the other way around.
If these people can seek out a doctor they can kill themselves and should not asking someone else to do it. I have no problem if they seek out a doctor looking for clean and painless tools but not to ask the doctor to do it.

[MelissaWV]

That is just it. DON'T CAUSE HARM TO SOMEBODY ELSE. When you kill somebody else you are causing harm. When you kill yourself you are harming nobody else anything beyond that is a slippery slope society will fall down if crossed. Someone else will determine when you die for your own good because you are not able as defined by the experts to do what is right for yourself. Neither the government nor a second person should be killing people for their OWN good.

When someone stabs you with a needle, they are causing harm. When you stab yourself with a needle, you are harming nobody else.

This is why we should outlaw piercings; you should just do it yourself.

It sounds dumb, doesn't it? People go to get piercings done by someone else, most times, because they want an expert to do it, and they want it done in a sterile environment with the proper equipment. People consent, at that time, to get it done. This somehow has not translated into random people on the street coming up and shoving needles in one another.

I understand that killing someone is more appealing, because the killer can have a great deal to gain, but the observation holds: we already allow people to assist us to do things we cannot, or will not, do to ourselves, even if they would be things that would be considered extremely harmful without the proper consent.

Rather than limit the right to do whatever someone wants, to only times when that person is physically capable of doing it, I would think most people would be fine with expanding it to a clearly-designated person of their choice. In other words, if you have no arms, no legs, and want to kill yourself, you might need help. If you had one arm left, and shot yourself, it seems most on the thread wouldn't have a problem with it. What awful luck on top of everything else, I guess, to be in your society and be unable to exercise one's own right to self-determination and self-termination.

If I cannot walk on my own, someone might assist me. If I need help using the restroom, someone might assist me. If I cannot see, someone might assist me. If I cannot feed myself, someone might assist me. If I cannot kill myself and want to... no one is allowed to assist me.

I don't see this as a slippery slope at all. You can assign agents to do your bidding, or to help you, and this is merely an extension of that contractual relationship. There will be abuses. There already are. Until we fix humanity, it'll be the case, and "outlawing" assisted suicide only makes those from whom you've taken the choice that less human.

[MsDoodahs]

If I cannot walk on my own, someone might assist me. If I need help using the restroom, someone might assist me. If I cannot see, someone might assist me. If I cannot feed myself, someone might assist me. If I cannot kill myself and want to... no one is allowed to assist me.

I don't see this as a slippery slope at all. You can assign agents to do your bidding, or to help you, and this is merely an extension of that contractual relationship. There will be abuses. There already are. Until we fix humanity, it'll be the case, and "outlawing" assisted suicide only makes those from whom you've taken the choice that less human.

^^Well said. Thank you.^^

[QueenB4Liberty]

When someone stabs you with a needle, they are causing harm. When you stab yourself with a needle, you are harming nobody else.

This is why we should outlaw piercings; you should just do it yourself.

It sounds dumb, doesn't it? People go to get piercings done by someone else, most times, because they want an expert to do it, and they want it done in a sterile environment with the proper equipment. People consent, at that time, to get it done. This somehow has not translated into random people on the street coming up and shoving needles in one another.

I understand that killing someone is more appealing, because the killer can have a great deal to gain, but the observation holds: we already allow people to assist us to do things we cannot, or will not, do to ourselves, even if they would be things that would be considered extremely harmful without the proper consent.

Rather than limit the right to do whatever someone wants, to only times when that person is physically capable of doing it, I would think most people would be fine with expanding it to a clearly-designated person of their choice. In other words, if you have no arms, no legs, and want to kill yourself, you might need help. If you had one arm left, and shot yourself, it seems most on the thread wouldn't have a problem with it. What awful luck on top of everything else, I guess, to be in your society and be unable to exercise one's own right to self-determination and self-termination.

If I cannot walk on my own, someone might assist me. If I need help using the restroom, someone might assist me. If I cannot see, someone might assist me. If I cannot feed myself, someone might assist me. If I cannot kill myself and want to... no one is allowed to assist me.

I don't see this as a slippery slope at all. You can assign agents to do your bidding, or to help you, and this is merely an extension of that contractual relationship. There will be abuses. There already are. Until we fix humanity, it'll be the case, and "outlawing" assisted suicide only makes those from whom you've taken the choice that less human.

Great post!

[Meatwasp]

Natalie. You thread reminded me of my aunt and uncle. My uncle didn't want to live so he just made himself die. Very weird than my Aunt did the same thing. Willed herself to die weird again but than her sister didn't want to live without them and willed herself to die also. It was the talk of the family for many years. Maybe some where in our brains we could turn this on without someone doing it for us. I have no problem with this at all.

[Meatwasp]

I believe a lot people have this ability. The ones that can except death without fear. If you ever saw a bird mauled by a cat, sometimes he acts dead until you talk to him and revive him. The Japanese were good at this.

[klamath]

When someone stabs you with a needle, they are causing harm. When you stab yourself with a needle, you are harming nobody else.

This is why we should outlaw piercings; you should just do it yourself.

It sounds dumb, doesn't it? People go to get piercings done by someone else, most times, because they want an expert to do it, and they want it done in a sterile environment with the proper equipment. People consent, at that time, to get it done. This somehow has not translated into random people on the street coming up and shoving needles in one another.

I understand that killing someone is more appealing, because the killer can have a great deal to gain, but the observation holds: we already allow people to assist us to do things we cannot, or will not, do to ourselves, even if they would be things that would be considered extremely harmful without the proper consent.

Rather than limit the right to do whatever someone wants, to only times when that person is physically capable of doing it, I would think most people would be fine with expanding it to a clearly-designated person of their choice. In other words, if you have no arms, no legs, and want to kill yourself, you might need help. If you had one arm left, and shot yourself, it seems most on the thread wouldn't have a problem with it. What awful luck on top of everything else, I guess, to be in your society and be unable to exercise one's own right to self-determination and self-termination.

If I cannot walk on my own, someone might assist me. If I need help using the restroom, someone might assist me. If I cannot see, someone might assist me. If I cannot feed myself, someone might assist me. If I cannot kill myself and want to... no one is allowed to assist me.

I don't see this as a slippery slope at all. You can assign agents to do your bidding, or to help you, and this is merely an extension of that contractual relationship. There will be abuses. There already are. Until we fix humanity, it'll be the case, and "outlawing" assisted suicide only makes those from whom you've taken the choice that less human.


Causing no harm was the other persons words which I quoted however if we are in such different worlds that ear piercings and ending life are equated then to me there is no point in continuing the discussion. Obviously your feeling for life and my feelings for life are so diametrically opposed that any attempt to continued will only end in hard feelings.

[MelissaWV]

Causing no harm was the other persons words which I quoted however if we are in such different worlds that ear piercings and ending life are equated then to me there is no point in continuing the discussion. Obviously your feeling for life and my feelings for life are so diametrically opposed that any attempt to continued will only end in hard feelings.

You're right. They are entirely different, and I made the parallel just to show how ridiculous your logic is. It simply doesn't hold true.

Ear piercing is something we can all do without. Control over my own life, either via myself or a surrogate, is something I won't do without.

[RileyE104]

If these people can seek out a doctor they can kill themselves and should not asking someone else to do it. I have no problem if they seek out a doctor looking for clean and painless tools but not to ask the doctor to do it.

No, the method Kevorkian was using can't be done by one's self because it uses materials that only licensed doctors are authorized to get.

Btw, seeking out a peaceful and calm suicide that can be done with members of the family around to be there with you in the last moments is very different than say grabbing a gun and blowing your head off. That is messy and traumatizing.

Also, who are you to tell another human being that they don't have the right to seek a peaceful death, even if it is a suicide? I mean come on, drug addicts die every day by overdose. Are you against legalizing drugs and ending Prohibition? What about people who die from drinking or smoking cigarettes? Should we go back to 1920's style Prohibition?

[ClayTrainor]

This whole debate is really centered around 1 basic principle.

Do individuals own themselves, or don't they? :)

[MelissaWV]

This whole debate is really centered around 1 basic principle.

Do individuals own themselves, or don't they? :)

Well, for some it also seems to involve the issue of whether or not you can delegate an important power like the means to end your life... to someone else.

[MRoCkEd]

Dr. Kevorkian let his patients pull the string on their own when they were ready.

[ClayTrainor]

Well, for some it also seems to involve the issue of whether or not you can delegate an important power like the means to end your life... to someone else.

To me, that's still centered around the principled of self-ownership. Who owns that power to be delegated...who does it directly effect?

If you do in fact own your life and your body, and the person you give consent to owns their life and their body, than why should anyone else be able to delegate or restrict that power?

[Pete Kay]

Well, for some it also seems to involve the issue of whether or not you can delegate an important power like the means to end your life... to someone else.

We consent to allow surgeons to perform life altering, potentially fatal procedures on us, don't we? How is assisted suicide any different?

[RileyE104]

Dr. Kevorkian let his patients pull the string on their own when they were ready.

This is what I've been trying to say since I started the thread.

I definitely have no problem with giving a person the means to peacefully end their life and then giving them the decision to do the final touch when they are ready.



It was only in the last case that Kevorkian gave an injection HIMSELF.

He gave 2 reasons:

1) The man was too ill to do it himself.

2) Kevorkian wanted to spark a national debate on the subject. He wanted to get the "right case" to the Supreme Court. They never heard the case, and he served time in prison BECAUSE the court refused to allow testimony from the dead man's family. THAT is completely fucked up and it only happened because of sneaky tactics by the Prosecutor.

[MRoCkEd]

Great movie, by the way.
Al Pacino plays Jack brilliantly.

MEGAVIDEO - I'm watching it (http://www.megavideo.com/?v=ZWL5VX14?advanced=)

[ClayTrainor]

Great movie, by the way.
Al Pacino plays Jack brilliantly.

MEGAVIDEO - I'm watching it (http://www.megavideo.com/?v=ZWL5VX14?advanced=)

Thanks, added that to my must watch list.

[Meatwasp]

No, the method Kevorkian was using can't be done Also, who are you to tell another human being that they don't have the right to seek a peaceful death, even if it is a suicide? I mean come on, drug addicts die every day by overdose. Are you against legalizing drugs and ending Prohibition? What about people who die from drinking or smoking cigarettes? Should we go back to 1920's style Prohibition?

I am sure if you read Klamath carefully he never said he was against someone committing suicide. He is against the machine and insane man who made it.
I am through with this thread go put your idol on a pedestal but don't cry when it becomes the norm to kill people.
Over and out.

[Meatwasp]

One last comment. When you get old and use Medicare too much and are sucking up more than you are contributing whose to say Doc Death is the front runner on euthanasia?
The planners want a city on the hill for only able and good citizens in it. Never any weak people.

[ClayTrainor]

One last comment. When you get old and use Medicare too much and are sucking up more than you are contributing whose to say Doc Death is the front runner on euthanasia?
The planners want a city on the hill for only able and good citizens in it. Never any weak people.

Well, that's why consent is the key thing to discuss here. No one, but the individual should be able to make the final decision.

[klamath]

To me, that's still centered around the principled of self-ownership. Who owns that power to be delegated...who does it directly effect?

If you do in fact own your life and your body, and the person you give consent to owns their life and their body, than why should anyone else be able to delegate or restrict that power?
Where we have the problem is the fact you come at it from an anarchist prospective while I am coming at it from a limited government prospective.

In an anarchy when people do stuff to each other where it does not concern me then that is strictly their business. I maybe horrified and saddened but to each his own. If my farmer neighbor gets killed and his family raped and the killer takes over the farm, I maybe absolutely horrified but once again it is not my concern. I am not going to argue the philosopy of anarchy except to say I personally don't believe it is a state that can ever exist.

Now in a society where there is a government whether you like it or not and will always be a government do you want the laws to change to allow one person to kill another even where there is agreement on what appears to be a noble cause of allowing someone to end their pain. If it ended there I could live with it even though I could see the potential for abuse. Having watched government and society for nearly a half century I have never see a major societal law change under the pretext that it will only apply to a very small targeted situation when a few years later that boundry is pushed back once again when people are used to the first law. The law is expanded to cover a broader range of circumstances. SSI when enacted was sold in that it would absolutely never tax you more than 3%. We all know that it is now 16%. There are countless laws that were started out that way because the backers knew they coundn't pass it the way they really wanted, to began with. There is a large group of people that believe governments should have the power to determine who is fit to live and die for the good of society. They will use a law like this to move the eugenics agenda foward.
You may see this as a move toward a free anarchal society but I see it as a move to an even more extreme government control of our lives.
This is why our view collide.

[low preference guy]

Seems low preference guy's argument is basicaly 'since it COULD be abused, we shant allow it'. Sounds like the argument for a lot of things the government outlaws that shouldn't.


Example?


The War on Drugs?

That's not a good example, because personal drug abuse is not a crime; you're just hurting yourself, which is not a crime. In the example of assisted suicide, abuse of the system is killing an innocent person, which is a crime.

I oppose euthanasia for the same reasons I oppose the death penalty. Although there are people who deserve the ultimate punishment, I prefer to just give them life in prison to not run the risk of killing an innocent man.

[low preference guy]

No, the method Kevorkian was using can't be done by one's self because it uses materials that only licensed doctors are authorized to get.


Then a much better thing to advocate is to eliminate those restrictions that forbid getting the materials.

[MelissaWV]

I gave a long list earlier in the thread.

It was summarily ignored.

[Theocrat]

Dr. Jack Kevorkian should have been executed for what he did. He took innocent lives, and he violated his Hippocratic Oath.

By the way, he says that nobody knows if there is a God. But if that's true, then how does he know that nobody knows? I'm sick of hearing that logical fallacy from agnostics who just don't want there to be a God, a Being that is stronger, smarter, and better than they are.

It's a shame that a physician, of all people, cannot even see the abundant evidence that God exists.

[tremendoustie]

Where we have the problem is the fact you come at it from an anarchist prospective while I am coming at it from a limited government prospective.

In an anarchy when people do stuff to each other where it does not concern me then that is strictly their business. I maybe horrified and saddened but to each his own. If my farmer neighbor gets killed and his family raped and the killer takes over the farm, I maybe absolutely horrified but once again it is not my concern. I am not going to argue the philosopy of anarchy except to say I personally don't believe it is a state that can ever exist.

Firstly, "anarchist" is an awful description of a principled pro-liberty position.

Secondly, what you describe is absolutely not the point of a free society. We should all stand up to defend innocent people from attack. What we shouldn't do is initiate aggressive violence against people who haven't harmed others, or their property.



Now in a society where there is a government whether you like it or not and will always be a government do you want the laws to change to allow one person to kill another even where there is agreement on what appears to be a noble cause of allowing someone to end their pain. If it ended there I could live with it even though I could see the potential for abuse. Having watched government and society for nearly a half century I have never see a major societal law change under the pretext that it will only apply to a very small targeted situation when a few years later that boundry is pushed back once again when people are used to the first law.


Laws become more stringent, not less. You've got the trend backwards. Usually, regulations become more burdensome, taxes are raised, and more and more activities are prohibited.



The law is expanded to cover a broader range of circumstances. SSI when enacted was sold in that it would absolutely never tax you more than 3%. We all know that it is now 16%. There are countless laws that were started out that way because the backers knew they coundn't pass it the way they really wanted, to began with. There is a large group of people that believe governments should have the power to determine who is fit to live and die for the good of society. They will use a law like this to move the eugenics agenda foward.


That's like saying we should make church illegal because legalizing church would be one step towards a state imposed religion. Or, it's like saying that we should make piruses illegal, because allowing people to drive priuses would be one step towards government mandated hybrids. It's silly. We should allow free individuals to make choices for themselves. Freedom is the opposite of tyranny.



You may see this as a move toward a free anarchal society but I see it as a move to an even more extreme government control of our lives.
This is why our view collide.

Once again, individual choice is the opposite of government control. Government control is what you're advocating -- the government not allowing you to make a decision about your own life. Government mandated life is a lot closer to government mandated death, than free choice is.

[ClayTrainor]

That's not a good example, because personal drug abuse is not a crime; you're just hurting yourself, which is not a crime. In the example of assisted suicide, abuse of the system is killing an innocent person, which is a crime.

A drug dealer provides a drug, in which someone voluntarily uses and kills themselves...

A doctor provides a drug, in which someone voluntarily uses and kills themselves...

Why is one more valid than the other?



I oppose euthanasia for the same reasons I oppose the death penalty. Although there are people who deserve the ultimate punishment, I prefer to just give them life in prison to not run the risk of killing an innocent man.

Apples an oranges. Convicting innocent people is always wrong. Death penalty is not a consensual choice for the person being killed. Assisted suicide must be 100% consensual and verifiable to be valid, or else the doctor should be tried for murder.

[low preference guy]

Dr. Jack Kevorkian should have been executed for what he did. He took innocent lives, and he violated his Hippocratic Oath.

I oppose the death penalty, but I agree with you other point that it's a shame that many doctors don't care about classic Hippocratic Oath anymore, particularly the part where it says


I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.

[Noob]

He ran for Congress back 2008 right?

[low preference guy]

Assisted suicide must be 100% consensual and verifiable to be valid

That's what I don't believe is possible. I don't think it's possible to have a system which is absolutely impossible to fool, and when it comes to life and death issues, I prefer to trade the possibility of euthanasia for removing the possibility of freaks successfully faking consent and killing people.

[low preference guy]

A drug dealer provides a drug, in which someone voluntarily uses and kills themselves...

A doctor provides a drug, in which someone voluntarily uses and kills themselves...


Those two examples are fine. I just don't want the doc pressing the button and killing the patient.

If I want disabled people to be able kill themselves, I would work in figuring out how to connect their brains to machines that can move objects and press buttons so they successfully can kill themselves, but I will always oppose anyone who wants to legalize the killing of one person by another with consent.

[ClayTrainor]

That's what I don't believe is possible.

So if i record my wishes on Videotape, with my family and friends as witnesses, while i sign documents confirming my consent... you wouldn't believe that I gave valid consent? You would feel the need to impose your will on my entirely family, and force them all to suffer through something they dont want to?

[ClayTrainor]

Those two examples are fine. I just don't want the doc pressing the button and killing the patient.


So you're okay with what happened in this video?

YouTube - Craig Ewert - Assisted Suicide in Switzerland (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWy6pKVendQ)

[low preference guy]

So if i record my wishes on Videotape, with my family and friends as witnesses, while i sign documents confirming my consent... you wouldn't believe that I gave valid consent? You would feel the need to impose your will on my entirely family, and force them all to suffer through something they dont want to?

It's not only about your family, it puts others at risk, so yes I support prosecution of the doctor that kills you.

As I said before, I support the alternative in technology. If I want disabled people to be able kill themselves, I would work in figuring out how to connect their brains to machines that can move objects and press buttons so they successfully can kill themselves.

[tremendoustie]

Those two examples are fine. I just don't want the doc pressing the button and killing the patient.

If they could somehow make murder look like doctor assisted suicide, they could easily make it look like doctor enabled suicide. Your objection to the one applies equally to the other.

You think they could fake out friends and aquaintances, manufacture video evidence, falsify statements, witnesses, etc, about whether the patient wants to die, but not about who pushed the button?

[ClayTrainor]

It's not only about your family, it puts others at risk, so yes I support prosecution of the doctor that kills you.

No, this is entirely about me and whether or not I own myself. My decision to end my own life, does not make it any easier for the doctor to kill someone else.

In the same respect, My decision to have open heart surgery, doesn't give the doctor permission to unnecessarily give people open heart surgery. He needs the patients consent before cutting my chest open.



As I said before, I support the alternative in technology. If I want disable people to be able kill themselves, I would work in figuring out how to connect their brains to machines that can move objects and press buttons so they successfully can kill themselves.


Dr. Kevorkians machine lets patients kill themselves. The switizerland video above shows the patient killing himself by voluntarily drinking the poison that the doctor provided.

[low preference guy]

Dr. Kevorkians machine lets patients kill themselves.

I'm opposed to restricting production or trade of such machines.

[ClayTrainor]

I'm opposed to restricting production or trade of such machines.

:)

Glad to hear it.

[klamath]

tremendoustie
Firstly, "anarchist" is an awful description of a principled pro-liberty position.
But I am talking about anarchy.

Secondly, what you describe is absolutely not the point of a free society. We should all stand up to defend innocent people from attack. What we shouldn't do is initiate aggressive violence against people who haven't harmed others, or their property.
Yes we all should but in an anarchy none are required to come to the aid of another and many would not. Just because you have a free society does not automatically rid the world of humans that care only about themselves and don't give a damn about what does not effect them. If you in your compassion, organized a group to protect your neigbhor you would be forming a government no matter what you want to call it.


Laws become more stringent, not less. You've got the trend backwards. Usually, regulations become more burdensome, taxes are raised, and more and more activities are prohibited.
You believe that letting people kill each other is the law getting more free but the way I see it is a backdoor way to make it socially aceptable to break down the line. Thou shalt not kill.



That's like saying we should make church illegal because legalizing church would be one step towards a state imposed religion. Or, it's like saying that we should make piruses illegal, because allowing people to drive priuses would be one step towards government mandated hybrids. It's silly. We should allow free individuals to make choices for themselves. Freedom is the opposite of tyranny.

No. All laws are not equal because there are a lot of lesser laws that change from place to place from culture to culture but common to most societies is that one law. "Thou shalt not kill" If government does not protect life then in my mind there is no point in government at all.



Once again, individual choice is the opposite of government control. Government control is what you're advocating -- the government not allowing you to make a decision about your own life. Government mandated life is a lot closer to government mandated death, than free choice is.

And once again I am not advocating that government force you to live. The only thing I am advocating is that the government not allow someone else to kill you. As long as you yourself pull that finial trigger that is your right. As someone else pointed out if you fall into that camp where you are paralized, machines can be made for you to pull the trigger either through voice recognition or the movement of one eyelid. If nothing is controlable by them then how the hell do you know they want to die???

[heavenlyboy34]

Thou shalt not kill.



The proper translation of that quote is thou shalt not MURDER. I don't necessarily agree with Kevorkian's method, but assisted suicide is far from murder.

[RileyE104]

By the way, he says that nobody knows if there is a God. But if that's true, then how does he know that nobody knows? I'm sick of hearing that logical fallacy from agnostics who just don't want there to be a God, a Being that is stronger, smarter, and better than they are.

It's a shame that a physician, of all people, cannot even see the abundant evidence that God exists.

Well.... It's obvious why your name is Theocrat.

I see nothing wrong with being Agnostic.

I used to consider myself Agnostic because of the fact that there are so many religions out there - combined with the facts that Man is flawed and Man created religion for the purpose of explaining the naturally unexplainable. I now consider myself a Deist for the 3 simple truths that I just listed - because I DO believe there is a God, but I got tired of hearing about all the bad things that would happen to me from each of the religions if I didn't accept their way.

Got a problem with that? Well then I've got two words for you but since it wouldn't be polite to express them I'll leave it to your imagination. :)

[tangent4ronpaul]

Does he have gift certificates? Maybe we could have a Moneybomb for about 500... That and hire a REALLY GOOD cult leader and get them into a position like the House Chaplin. When is Haley Bob scheduled to come back anyway?

:rolleyes:

-t

[idirtify]

my opinion is that if you want to die, kill yourself. i'm against legalizing assisted suicide because it could lead to people faking consent to murder someone.

Maybe we should stop legalizing any more freedoms; because then people will just abuse them.

[low preference guy]

Maybe we should stop legalizing any more freedoms; because then people will just abuse them.

your argument doesn't make sense. if people abuse drugs, they don't commit any crime. if people abuse the system of assisted suicide, they kill an innocent man. so the freedoms we usually advocate legalizing, like drug consumption don't result in any crime even if those freedoms are abused.

[RileyE104]

your argument doesn't make sense. if people abuse drugs, they don't commit any crime. if people abuse the system of assisted suicide, they kill an innocent man. so the freedoms we usually advocate legalizing, like drug consumption don't result in any crime even if those freedoms are abused.

If the Individual owns his body then he should be allowed to give consent to another to end his life.

Otherwise, should a woman not be allowed to consent to someone having sex with her? After all, that SYSTEM of allowing Individuals to have consensual sex together could be ABUSED.

What's stopping a man from going around and having sex with women, even those who REFUSE to allow it, and then argue that they're lying when victims claims rape?

Oh ya, that ALREADY happens. And you know what? The police do their jobs and find out if a rape really happened or not. JUST like they would do if a person didn't really give consent to another Individual to end their life for them.

END of argument. You're "abuse" theory is nothing but FEAR and it's obvious how wrong you are.

[low preference guy]

If the Individual owns his body then he should be allowed to give consent to another to end his life.

Otherwise, should a woman not be allowed to consent to someone having sex with her? After all, that SYSTEM of allowing Individuals to have consensual sex together could be ABUSED.

What's stopping a man from going around and having sex with women, even those who REFUSE to allow it, and then argue that they're lying when victims claims rape?

Oh ya, that ALREADY happens. And you know what? The police do their jobs and find out if a rape really happened or not. JUST like they would do if a person didn't really give consent to another Individual to end their life for them.

END of argument. You're "abuse" theory is nothing but FEAR and it's obvious how wrong you are.

My concern is with the protection of life. Sex is necessary for life to exist. Death occurs naturally, and I'm not going to support risking the lives of innocent people to legalize consensual killing.

[RileyE104]

My concern is with the protection of life. Sex is necessary for life to exist. Death occurs naturally, and I'm not going to support risking the lives of innocent people to legalize consensual killing.

Do you not get it? Consensual sex could LEAD to rape if the woman suddenly decides she doesn't want it and the man decides to keep going, and rape can lead to death, obviously.

[low preference guy]

Do you not get it? Consensual sex could LEAD to rape if the woman suddenly decides she doesn't want it and the man decides to keep going, and rape can lead to death, obviously.

Gotta admire the passion for dying! Isn't is stressful? Maybe you will have a nervous breakdown and won't even need Dr. Kevorkian to press that button for ya!

[MelissaWV]

your argument doesn't make sense. if people abuse drugs, they don't commit any crime. if people abuse the system of assisted suicide, they kill an innocent man. so the freedoms we usually advocate legalizing, like drug consumption don't result in any crime even if those freedoms are abused.

No, but someone could spike that person's drugs and, since they are untested (which is actually one of the big arguments for Government regulation and control of a lot of medications) they could contain chemicals that cause the person's death. Drug DEALING, then, is not a "victimless" crime in that it can be abused along these lines. Dealers can cut narcotics with other things that an end user might be allergic to, for instance, and cause a death that way. Someone might even deliberately make their product even more potent, which is very likely to lead to the deaths of the people who take it... but those who survive might be happy at the increased potency, motivating the dealer to do this.

Are you against drug dealing? I'm not, because ultimately the end user makes a decision about whether or not to put that product, risks known or guessed-at, into their body. At the end of the day, you have yet to prove that the system is any more likely to be abused than any other system that is currently in place which involves delegation of duties.

[low preference guy]

No, but someone could spike that person's drugs and, since they are untested (which is actually one of the big arguments for Government regulation and control of a lot of medications) they could contain chemicals that cause the person's death. Drug DEALING, then, is not a "victimless" crime in that it can be abused along these lines. Dealers can cut narcotics with other things that an end user might be allergic to, for instance, and cause a death that way. Someone might even deliberately make their product even more potent, which is very likely to lead to the deaths of the people who take it... but those who survive might be happy at the increased potency, motivating the dealer to do this.

Are you against drug dealing? I'm not, because ultimately the end user makes a decision about whether or not to put that product, risks known or guessed-at, into their body. At the end of the day, you have yet to prove that the system is any more likely to be abused than any other system that is currently in place which involves delegation of duties.

I consider the protection of consensual killing an unnecessary threat to innocent people. And I don't need to prove anything, as this issue isn't being about to be enacted into law. I might try to prove to others that the war on drugs is a failure, but for this issue I don't need to do anything, except maybe make a few jokes.

ETA: To give you a more serious response, I consider the other systems that can be abused essential to life. The legality of sex can be abused, but I want to run the risk. I don't want to run additional risks to protect consensual death. I only have interest in protecting life. And I don't think I can be persuaded by arguments, because it's very close to an ultimate choice. It's what I want the legal system to do, it isn't about better ways of achieving a goal.

[RileyE104]

Gotta admire the passion for dying! Isn't is stressful? Maybe you will have a nervous breakdown and won't even need Dr. Kevorkian to press that button for ya!

Are you kidding? I would never do what Kevorkian advocates in my life, which I intend to see to the end. Just like how I would never smoke Crack if it were legalized tomorrow.